■»■■• 


■-/'/','  f- 


..      ^K-^- 


•'» 


,..   •'.♦     -t 


,  .  -.ir  K^ 


4^/1  zr'V- 


'/CM- 


re 


/<-^"  /f'^ 


7/ 


/'^/^^J  / 


C^.y2)  ^y 


SYLLABUS  AND  NOTES 


OF 


THE    COURSE 


OF 


SYSTEMATIC  AND  POLEMIC  THEOLOGY 


TAUGHT    IN 


UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  VIRGINIA. 


BY 


R.  L.  DABNEY^  D.  D.,  LL.D. 


SECOND  EDITION. 


ST.  LOUIS: 

PRESBYTERIAN    PUBLISHING   COMPANY   OF   ST.    LOUIS, 

207  North  Eighth  Street. 
1878. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1S71, 

BY 

K.  L.  DABNEY,  D.   D..   LL.  D., 

ri  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Wasliington. 


NOTE  TO  THE    READER. 

{^Accompanying  the  First  Edition.) 


Ad  Lectorem. — Our  preceptor  in  Theology  having  given  to  the  classes  the 
course  of  lectures  which  he  had  delivered  to  previous  ones,  to  be  used  by  us  in  any 
manner  we  found  most  convenient  for  our  assistance  in  this  study,  we  have  printed 
them  in  this  form  for  private  circulation  among  ourselves  and  our  predecessors  and 
successors  in  the  Seminaiy.  Our  reasons  for  doing  so  are  the  following :  We  found 
these  lectures  useful,  so  far  as  we  had  proceeded,  in  assisting  our  comprehension  of 
the  text-books.  As  Dr.  Dabney  announced  a  change  in  the  method  of  his  instruction, 
in  which  he  would  cease  to  deliver  the  lectures  orally,  from  his  chair  ;  and  placed  thetn 
in  MS.  at  the  disposal  of  the  students,  we  desired  to  continue  to  avail  ourselves  of 
their  assistance.  To  provide  ourselves  with  copies,  and  to  extend  their  use  to  subse- 
quent fellow-students,  the  most  convenient  and  obvious  mode  was  to  print  them. 
This  has  been  done  at  the  expense  of  the  students  of  1878;  and  a  small  number  of 
copies,  beyond  our  own  need,  has  been  struck  off. 

A  few  explanations  may  be  necessary  for  the  understanding  of  the  method  of 
study,  of  which  these  notes  forma  part.  Tht  system  consists  of  recitations  on  lessons 
from  text-books,  chiefly  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Turrettin's  Elenctic Theology,  oral 
instructions  and  explanations  of  the  Professor,  the  preparation  and  reading  of  Theses 
by  the  students  upon  the  topics  under  discussion,  and  finally,  review  recitations  upon 
the  whole.  The  design  is  to  combine,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  assistance  of  the  living 
teacher  with  the  cultivation  of  the  powers  of  memory,  comparison,  judgment,  reason- 
ing and  expression,  by  the  researches  of  the  students  themselves,  and  to  fix  the 
knowledge  acquired  by  repeated  views  of  it.  When  a  "head"  of  divinity  is 
approached,  the  firot  step  which  our  professor  takes,  is  to  propound  to  us,  upon  the 
black-board,  a  short,  comprehensive  syllabus  of  its  discussion,  in  the  form  of  quei- 
tions ;  the  whole  prefaced  by  a  suitable  lesson  in  the  text-book.  Our  first  business 
is  to  master  and  recite  this  lesson.  Having  thus  gotten,  from  our  standard  author, 
a  trustworthy  outline  of  the  discussion,  we  proceed  next  to  investigate  the  same  sub- 
ject, as  time  allows,  in  other  writers,  both  friendly  and  hostile,  preliminary  to  the 
composttion  of  a  thesis.  It  is  to  guide  this  research,  that  the  syllabus,  with  its 
numerous  references  to  books,  has  been  given  us.  These  have  been  carefully  selected 
"by  the  Professor,  so  as  to  direct  to  the  ablest  and  most  thorough  accessible  authors, 
Avho  defend  and  impugn  the  truth.  The  references  may,  in  many  cases,  be  far  more 
numerous  than  any  Seminary-student  can  possibly  read,  at  the  time,  with  the  duties 
of  the  other  departments  upon  his  hands.  To  guide  his  selection,  therefore,  the  most 
important  authority  is  named  first,  under  each  question,  [it  may  be  from  our  text-book 
or  from  some  other],  then  the  next  in  value,  and  last,  those  others  which  the  student 
may  consult  with  profit  at  his  greater  leisure.  The  syllabus  with  its  references  we 
find  one  of  the  most  valuable  features  of  our  course ;  it  guides  not  only  our  first 
investigations,  but  those  of  subsequent  years,  when  the  exigencies  of  our  pastoral 
work  may  req.uire  us  to  return  and  make  a  wider  research  into  the  same  subject.  It 
■directs  our  inquiries  intelligently,  and  rescues  lis  from  the  drudgery  of  wading  through 
masses  of  literaiy  rubbish  to  find  the  opinions  of  the  really  influential  minds,  by  giving 
us  some  of  the  experience  of  one  older  than  ourselves,  whose  duty  it  has  been  to  ex- 
amine many  books  upon  theology  and  its  kindred  sciences. 


NOTE    TO    THE    READER. 

After  the  results  of  our  own  research  have  been  presented,  it  has  been  Dr.  Dab- 
ney's  usage  to  declare  his  own  view  of  the  whole  subject;  and  these  lectures  fonn  the 
mass  of  what  is  printed  below.  They  take  the  fomi  therefore  of  resumes  of  the 
discussion  already  seen  in  the  books ;  oftentimes,  reciting  in  plainer  or  fresher  shape 
even  the  arguments  of  the  text-book  itself,  when  the  previous  examination  has  revealed 
the  fact  that  tlie  class  have  had  difficulty  in  grasping  them,  and  often  reproducing  the 
views  to  which  the  other  references  of  the  syllabus  had  already  directed  us.  It  needs 
hardly  to  be  added,  that  the  Professor  of  course  made  no  pretense  of  originality, 
save  in  the  mode  of  connecting,  harmonizing,  or  refuting"  some  of  the  statements 
passed  in  review.  Indeed,  it  seemed  ever  to  be  his  aim  to  show  us  how  to  get  for 
ourselves,  in  advance  of  his  help,  all  the  things  to  which  in  his  final  lecture  he  assisted 
us.  These  lectures  henceforth  in  the  hands  of  the  classes,  wall  take  the  place  of  a 
subordinate  text-book,  along  with  the  others ;  and  the  time  formerly  devoted  to  their 
oral  delivery  will  be  applied  to  giving  us  the  fruits  of  other  researches  in  advance  of 
the  existing  course. 

It  only  remains  that  we  indicate  the  order  of  subjects.  This  is  chiefly  that 
observed  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But  the  course  begins  with  Natural  Theolog}', 
which  is  then  followed  by  a  brief  review  of  the  doctrines  of  psychology  and  ethicks, 
which  are  most  involved  in  the  study  of  theology.  This  being  done,  the  lectures 
proceed  to  revealed  theology,  assuming,  as  a  postulate  established  by  another  depart- 
ment in  the  Seminary,  the  inspiration  and  infaUibility  of  the  Scriptures. 

The  form  in  wliich  the  lectures  are  presented  to  our  comrades  is  dictated  by  the 
necessity  of  having  them  issued  from  the  press  weekly,  in  order  to  meet  our  immediate 
wants  in  the  progress  of  the  course.  It  need  only  be  said  in  conclusion  that  rliis- 
printing  is  done  by  Dr.  Dabney's  consent. 

COMMITTEE  OF  PRINTING. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. — Preface:  and  Existence  of  God. 
Theol.  what?     Its  Divisions.     Is  Nat.  Theol.  a  Science ?     Two  Args.  for  God's 
Existence.  Arg.  of  S.  Clarke,  of  J.  Howe,  of  Breckinridge.  Teleological  Arg.    pp.  5-14. 

LECTURE  II. — Existence  of  God,  {continued.') 

Teleological  Arg.  applied  in  instances.  Ethical  Arg.  Consensus  Popiilorum. 
Universe  a  Singular  effect.    Atheistictheory  of  Infin.  Series.    Pantheism.      pp.  15-26. 

LECTURE  III.— Evolution. 

Theory  stated.  Tendency  Atheistic.  Theory  not  proved.  Does  not  weaken 
Teleological  Arg. pp.  26-38. 

LECTURE  IV.— Divine  Attributes. 

How  many  does  Reason  infer?  Eternity.  Unity.  Spirituality.  Simphcity. 
Immensity.     Infinitude.     Immutability.  -         -         -        -        -  '      pp.  38-45. 

LECTURE   v.— Divine  Attributes,   {continued.) 
Reason  infers  also  Omnipotence,  Omniscience,  Rectitude,  Goodness.  Optimism. 
Man's  Duties  to  God. pp.  46-54. 

LECTURE   VI.— Materialism. 

Attempted  Use  of  Doctrine  of  "Correlation  of  Forces."  Theory  of  Phys.  B  sis 
of  Life.  Connection  between  Materialism  and  Atheism.  Moral  Results  of  the 
latter. pp.  55  64- 

LECTURE  VII. — Immortality  of  the  Soul  and  Defects  of  Natural  Religion. 
Testimony  of  Consciousness,  of  Reason,  of  Conscience,  of  Nat.  Theol.     Natural 
Analogies  for  Pardon  doubtful.     Nat.  Theol.     Deficient  for  Warrant  and  Guarantee. 
Necessity  of  a  Revelation.  - pp.  64- 78. 

LECTURE   VIII.— Sources  of  our  Thinking. 

Important  to  Theol.  Question  of  Innate  Ideas.  Primitive  Ideas  must  be  Granted. 
Metaphysical  Skepticism.  Tests  of  a  Primary  Truth.  Axioms  are  Such.  Spirituality, 
Identity,  Reahty  of  the  Objective,  Cause  for  every  Effect  are  Intuitively  seen.  Belief 
not  Derived  from  Association,  or  Experience.  True  Doctrine  of  Causation.  The 
Final  Cause.  '^'^■1^-^\' 

LECTURE  IX.— Sources  of  our  Thinking,  {continued.) 

All  Judgments  Intuitive  and  Necessary,  if  Valid.  Origin  of  our  Moral  Judgments. 
Selfish  System  of  Hobbes.  UtiUtarian  Ethics.  Selfish  System  of  Paley.  Sentiment- 
al Theory  of  Dr.  A.  Smith.  --------      pp. 94-110. 

LECTURE  X. -Ethical  Theories  [continued.)   ■ 

True  Theory  of  Moral  Distinction  and  Obligation.  Moral  Judgments  are 
Rational.  The  Moral  Emotion.  Schemes  of  Hutcheson,  Jouffroy  and  Brown.  Suprem- 
acy and  Authority  of  Conscience.     Essentials  to  Moral  Responsibility.       pp.  1 10- 1 19. 

LECTURE  XL- Free  Agency  and  the  Will. 
Man's  Free  Agency  denied  by  Theological  Fatalists  and  Sensualistic  Necessita- 
rians.   Freedom  and  Necessity  defined.    Theory  of  Indifferency  of  the  Will.   Theoiy 
of  Certainty,   and  Efficiency  of  Motives.     Motives    Defined.     True  Doctrine    Sus- 
tained and  Objections  Answered.         -------     pp.  1 19-132. 

LECTURE  XII.— Responsibility  and  Province  of  Reason. 

Moral  Character  of  Dispositions  and  Desires.  Responsibility  for  BeUefs.  Pro- 
vince of  Reason   in  Revealed  Theol.      Protestant  System.     Rationalism.      Prelatic 

System.       -        -        -        - pp.  I33-I44- 

I 


2  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  XIII.— Revealed  Theology.     God  and  His  Attributes 
Names   and   Titles   applied  to    God.     God's   Attributes,    Defined,    Classified. 
■Scriptural  evidences  of  God's  Unity,  Spirituality,  Simplicity,  Immensity,  Eternity  and 

immutability. PP-  I44-I54- 

LECTURE  XIV. — Divine  Attributes,  (continued.) 
Scriptural  account  of  Knowledge  and  Wisdom.  Meaning  of  His  Simple,  His 
Free,  and  His  Mediate  Knowledge.  Free  Knowledge  of  the  Future  Acts  of  Free 
Apents.  Scriptural  Evidence  of  His  Will  and  Power.  Omnipotent  over  Free  Agents. 
Distinction  between  Decretive  and  Preceptive  Will.  Antecedent  and  Consequent 
Will.  His  Will  Absolute.  Is  God's  Will  the  sole  source  of  Moral  Distinc- 
tions'?      PP-  154-164- 

LECTURE  XV.— God's  Moral  Attributes. 

Absolute  and  Relative,  Distributive  and  Punitive  Justice  Defined  and  Proved 

from  Scripture.     God's  goodness.     Its  Relations  to  His  Love,  His  Grace  and  His 

Mercy.     Scriptural  Proofs.     Truth  and  Faithfulness  Defined  and  Established.     God's 

Holiness.     Defined  and  Proved.     God's  Infinitude.     Proofs.      -        -     pp.  164-174. 

LECTURE  XVI.  — The  Trinity. 

The  Terms,  Trinity,  Essence,  Substance,  Subsistence,  Person ;  Derived  and 
Defined.  Three  Tendencies  of  Opinion  on  Trinity;  the  Patripassian,  Sabellian  and 
Arian  Schemes  Stated  and  Refuted.  Orthodox  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity  Stated  and  De- 
fended. Rationalistic  Explanations  of  the  Greek  Scholastics,  of  Th.  Aquinas.  Proof 
of  Trinity  from  Revelation.  .----.-.  pp.  174-182. 
LECTURE  XVII.— Divinity  of  Christ. 

Argued  froin  His  Pre-existence.  In  the  Old  Test.  Theophanies,  and  Angel  of 
the  Covenant.  Augustine's  Difficulty  answered.  Divine  Names,  Attributes,  W^orks 
and  Worship  given  to  Christ.       - pp.  182  193. 

LECTURE  XVIII— Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  atid  of  the  Son. 

History  ofthe  Doctrine  of  Holy  Ghost.  The  Orthodox  Doctrine.  Personahty 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  argued  from  Scripture. 
Objections  answered.  Controversy  on  the  Procession  of  Holy  Ghost  examined. 
Divinity  of  second  and  third  Persons  proved  by  offices  in  Redemption.      pp.  193-201. 

LECTURE  XIX. — Personal  Distinctions  in  the   Trinity. 

Son's  Generation  and  Filiation;  Orthodox,  Arian,  and  Socinian  Views  of. 
Ante-Nicene  Greek  Speculations  on.     Eternal  Generation  Proved.     Procession  of 

HolyGhost. pp.  202  211. 

LECTURE  XX.— Decrees  of  God. 

His  Acts  Classified.  Decree  Proved  by  God's  Intelligence,  His  Power.  Dif- 
ferent from  Fate.  Distinction  between  permissive  and  efficacious.  Properties  of 
the  Decree;  Unity,  Eternity,  Universahty  (including  creatures'  acts).  Efficiency, 
Unconditionality,  Freedom  and  Wisdom.     Objections  answered.         -     pp.  211-223. 

LECTURE  XXL— Predestination. 
Definition.  Proposition,  a  Definite  Election  of  Individual  Men  to  Salvation, 
Proved,  from  Decree,  from  Original  Sin,  from  Scripture  Testimonies,  by  Providence. 
Evasions  Considered,  Predestination  Eternal,  Efficacious,  Unchangeable,  etc. 
■Objections.  Predestination  of  Angels,  Diff"erent  from  that  of  Man.  Schemes  of  the 
Sublapsarian   and  Supralapsarian  Fxamined. pp.  223-234. 

LECTURE  XXII.— Predestination,   (concluded.) 
Hypothetic  Scheme  Examined.     Arminian  Scheme  Stated  and  Refuted.     God's 
Decree  of  Preterition.    Its  Grounds.    Proved.    Predestination  Consistent  with  Justice, 
with ,  Holiness,    and   with    Benevolence    of    God.     Practical   Effects   of    the    Doc- 
trine. ----- pp.  235-246. 

LECTURE  XXIIL— Creation. 
Terms  Defined.  Creation  out  of  Nothing.  The  Atomic,  Pantheistic  and 
Platonic  Schemes  Refuted.  Proofs  from  Scripture,  from  Reason ;  and  Objections  to 
the  Eternity  of  the  Universe  and  Matter.  No  Creature  can  be  Enabled  to 
Create.  The  Creative  Week.  Theories  of  Modern  Geologists  concerning  the 
Age  of  the  Earth.  Their  Grounds  and  modes  of  Reconciling  them  with  Mosaic 
History.  pp.  247-256. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  3 

Appendix. — Geologic   Theories  and  Chronology. 

Must  concern  Theologian.  How  to  be  treated  by  him.  Burden  of  Proof 
against  Revealed  Facts  lies  on  the  Geologist.  His  a  posteriori  Argument  Circum- 
stantial. Hence  Invalid  against  Credible  "Parole"  Evidence.  When  pushed  to 
extreme,  Atheistic. --...     pp_  256  -263. 

LECTURE  XXIV.—Atigels. 

Existence  and  Personality  of  Angels.  Their  Qualities.  Their  First  Estate, 
Probation  and  Issue  thereof.  Offices  of  the  Good  Angels.  Personality  and  Head- 
ship of  Satan.  Powers  of  BadAngels.  Witchcraft.  Demoniacal  Possessions.  Temp- 
tations.    Personal  Christian  Duties  Resulting.  -        .        .        .     pp_  264-275. 

LECTURE  XXV.— Providence. 
Definitions.  Theory  of  Epicurean,  of  General  Providence.  Of  Pantheist. 
Concern  of  Providence  in  Phys.  Causes  and  Laws.  A  Special  argued  from  a  General 
Providence.  Doctrine  Proved,  from  God's  Perfections,  Man's  Moral  Intuitions 
Course  of  Nature  and  Human  History,  Dependence  of  Creatures ;  from  Scriptures. 
Objections  Answered.  Relation  of  Providence  to  Rational  Acts  of  Free  Agents. 
God's  Agency  in  Man's  Spiritual  Acts;  in  Man's  Sins.  Doctrine  of  an  Immediate 
Concursus.     The  True  Doctrine  Sustained.         -         -        -        .        .     pp_  276-291. 

LECTURE  XX VL. — Man's  Estate  of  Holiness,  and  the  Covenant  of  Works. 
Man's  Origin.  Man's  Person,  Body  and  Spirit.  In  the  "Image  of  God." 
Man's  Original  Righteousness.  Concreated.  Viewsof  Pelagians  and  Socinians,  and 
of  Romanists  Refuted.  The  True  View  Established.  Natural  Relation  of  Man  to 
God's  Will.  Covenant  of  Works,  Proof  of  its  Institution  and  Extent  to  Posterity. 
The  Condition  and  Seal  of  the  Covenant.     Probation  Temporary.         -     pp.  292  301;. 

LECTURE  XXVII.— The  Fall,  and  Original  Sin. 

Sin  and  Guilt  Defined.  Adam's  First  Sin.  Effects  of  Sin  in  Adam.  The 
Tempter.  Sentence  on  Him.  Eff'ects  of  Adam's  Fall  on  His  Posterity,  According- 
to  Pelagian  ;  Lower  Arminian  ;  Wesleyan  ;  and  Calvinistic  Theory.  Origin  of  Soulst 
History  of  Opinions.  Args.  of  Traducianists  and  Creationists  examined,     ipp.  306-321. 

LECTURE  XXVIII.— Original  Sin,  (continued.) 
Defined.     Depravity  Total.     Its  Existence  in  the  Race  proved,  from  Experience  ; 
from  Scripture.  Imputation  of  the  Guilt  to  Posterity,  Defined  and  Proved,  pp.  321-332.' 

LECTURE  XXIX.— Original  Sin,  {concluded.) 
Objections  to  Ai-gs.  for  Native  Depravity  Considered.  Objections  to  Imputa- 
tion, from  Scriptures;  from  Absence  of  consent  to  Adam's  Representation;  from  its 
Supposed  Injustice ;  from  God's  Goodness,  Answered.  Theories  of  Mediate  and 
Immediate  Imputation  Examined  and  Correct  View  Sustained.  Importance  of  the 
Doctrine  from  its  Connection  with  other  Doctrines  of  Redemption.         -     pp.  332-3151. 

LECTURE  XXX.— The  Decalogue. 
Definitions.     Moral  Distinction  Intrinsic  and  Eternal.     Of  Moral  Obligation. 
Uses  of  Law  under  the  Covenant  of  Grace.     Origin  and  Divisions.     Rules  of  Inter- 
pretation.    The  Law  Perfect.  -        -        -         -        -        -         -    pp.  35i--'i;7. 

LECTURE  XXXI. —  The  First  Table. — [ist,  2nd  and jrd  Commandments.) 
Scope  of  the  ist  Commandment.     Romish  Idolatiy.     Args.  against  Saint,  Ano-el 
and  Relic  Worship.    Scope  of  2nd  Commandment.  Image  Worship.  Excuses  of  Rome 
Examined.    Scope  of  3rd  Commandment.     Lawful  Oaths  and  Vows.       PP-  358-"'6?. 

LECTURE  XXXII— First  Table.— [4th  Commandment.) 
Diversity  in  the  Obser\"ance.  Opinion  of  Papists,  Lutherans,  Socinians,  the 
Anglican  Church,  Calvin,  and  the  Arminians  each  Examined.  True  Doctrine 
Westminster  Assembly.  Sabbath  Command  Moral  and  Perpetual,  Proved  by 
Decalogue,  by  Tradidon.  New  Test.  Arg.  Anti-Sabbatarian  View.  The  Lord's 
Day  the  Christian  Sabbath.     Practical  Arg.  -  -        -        .     pp.  366-''97. 

LECTURE  XXXIII.— Second  Table.— {^th  and 6th  Commandments.) 
Scope  of  5th  Commandment.     Parents  represent  all  Superiors.     Extent  of  the 
Promise.     Scope  of  6th  Commandment.     Annimal   Life,    Capital   Punishment,    De- 
fensive War,  Moral  Character  of  Dueling. pp.  308-406. 


4  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  XXXIV.— Second  Table.— {7th  and 8th  Conunandments.) 

Scope  of  7th  Commandment.  Adulteiy  and  its  Punishment.  Divorce.  Polyg- 
amy. Limits  of  Consanguinity.  Celibacy.  Scope  of  8th  Commandment.  Origm 
of  Right  of  Private  Property.  Usury.  Buying  and  Selling  under  the  Law  of  Char- 
ity.       PP-  406-418. 

LECTURE  XXXV.—Second  Table.— {gth  and  loth  Conunandments.) 

Scope  of  9th  Commandment.  Grounds  of  Duty  of  Veracity.  Its  practical  im- 
portance. Evil  Speaking.  Are  all  Deceptions  Lies?  Scope  of  loth  Commandment. 
Romish  Division  of  it.  The  Decalogue  only  from  God.  "What  does  every  Sin  de- 
serve? -     • pp.  419-4^9- 

LECTURE  XXXVI.— The  Covenant  of  Grace. 

God's  Remedy.  Terms  defined.  Covenant  of  Redemption,  Proof  of.  How  re- 
lated to  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  The  Original  Parties  to  the  Covenant.  Motives  of 
God  to  the  Covenant.  Conditions  Pledged,  by  Christ;  by  the  Father.  Instrumental 
Conditi(  n  required  of  Men.     Faith  the  only  condition.  -         -        pp.  429-439. 

LECTURE  XXXVII.— Covenant  of  Grace,  [continued.) 

One  in  all  Ages.  Opinion  of  Socinians,  of  Anabaptists,  of  Remonstrant>  thereon. 
Two  Dispensations,  why  ?  The  Gospel  Preached  to  Adam.  The  Development  of 
Grace.  A  Mediator.  Sacrificial  Types.  Additional  Revelations  to  Patriarchs,  Eternal 
Life  Promised.  pp.  44°  452- 

LECTURE  XXXVIII.— Covenant  of  Grace,  [concluded.) 

Covenant  of  Sinai,  not  a  Covenant  of  Works.  True  Nature  of  this  Covenant.. 
Difference  of  Old  Dispensation  from  New.  No  Limbus  Patrum.  Old  Testament 
Saints  Redeemed  at  Death.  -        - pp.  452-463. 

LECTURE  XXXIX.— Mediator  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Mediator  what?  Why  Needed  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Jesus  the  Mediator 
of  Old  Testament.  Hypostatic  Union,  Views  of  Gnostics,  Eutychians,  Nestorians 
and  Orthodox  thereon  ;  the  Ground  of  Efficacy  of  Christ's  Work.  Impeccability  of 
Christ.  Does  Christ  Mediate  in  both  Natures  ?  Necessity  of  each.  Necessity  of 
Christ's  Prophetic  Work,  Socinian  view  of. pp.  464-477. 

LECTURE  XL.— Mediator,  {continued.) 

Christ  the  Only  Mediator.  Arg.  of  Rome  refuted.  Angelic  Mediation.  Christ's 
Anointing.  Christ's  Offices  Three,  Why?  His  Prophetic  Work,  its  Modes  and 
Periods.       ------------pp.  477-484. 

LECTURE  XLL— Mediator,  [concluded.) 

Christ  the  True  Priest.  Functions  of  the  Priesthood.  Its  Peculiarities.  Neces- 
sity of  Satisfaction  Proved  against  Socinians,  etc.  God's  Motive  Satisfying  His  own 
Justice.  False  Theories  of  Penalty  Refuted.  Title  to  Penalty  Correlative  to  Title  to 
Reward.  - pp.  485-499. 

LECTURE  XLIL— Nature  of  Christ's  Sacrifice. 

Redemption  Foreshadowed  in  Providence.  Intervention  Costs  a  Penalty.  Sub- 
stitution Unusual  among  Men,  Why  ?  Terms  Defined.  The  very  Penalty.  Theory 
ol  Christ's  Death  as  held  by  Socinians,  Theory  of  Moral  Influence,  and  Theory  of 
Governmental  Influence  Stated  and  Refuted.  Christ's  Proper  Substitution  and  Vica- 
rious Sacrifice  Proved.     Conditions  of  Efficacy  of  this  Atonement.       -     pp.  500  512. 

LECTURE  XLIIL- Nature  of  Christ's  Sacrifice,  [continued.) 

Socinian  and  Semi-Pclag(an  Objections  to  Doctrine  of  Vicarious  Satisfaction  con- 
sidered. Design  of  God  therein  and  Extent  of  that  Design.  Theories  of  Pelagians, 
Wesleyans,  Hypothetic  Universalists  (Amyrant),  Calvinists.  Proofs  of  latter  and 
former  refuted.  Difficulties  of  the  Subject.  Christ's  Satisfaction  not  Commercial. 
The  Design  and  Result  Co-extensive.  God's  Volitions  from  a  Complex  Motive. 
Objections  Solved. pp.  515-535. 

LECTURE  XLIV. — Results  of  Christ's  Sacrifice,  as  to  God's  Glory  and  other  Worlds. 

Penance  and  Purgatory.  Histoiy  of.  Romish  Doctrines  Stated,  with  their  Args. 
and  Replies.        -- -...    pp,  536-545. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS.  5 

LECTURE  XLV. —  Christ'' s  Humiliation  and  Exaltation. 

Did  He  Descend  into  Hell  ?  Calvin's  View.  Exaltation,  Session  at  Father's 
Right-hand.  Resurrection  of  Christ  Proved.  Its  Importance.  Christ's  Priestly  In- 
tercession, its  Grounds,  Objects,  Mode,  Duration.  Christ's  Kingdom,  the  Extent 
of  His  Powers,  its  Duration.       -----...     pp_  C46  -553. 

LECTURE  XLVI.— Effectual  Calling. 

Applicadon  of  Redemption  by  Holy  Ghost.  Sin  Necessitates  the  Call.  Com- 
mon and  Effectual  CaUing.  'Designs  of  God  in  Common  Call;  His  Sincerity  therein. 
Scripture  Arg.     Objections  considered.       ------     pp_  553-559. 

LECTURE  XL  VII.— Effectual  Calling,  {cbntinued.) 

Agent  and  Instrument  of  Regeneration.  Pelagian  and  Semi-Pelagian  View  of 
Regeneration.  Correct  View  Sustained.  Is  the  Operation  of  the  Spirit  Mediate  ? 
Dick's  View.     Definition  of  Doctrine.     Argument.     How  Moral  Opinions  Arise. 

PP-  560-579- 

LECTURE  XLVIII.—Anninian  Theory  of  Redemption. 

Five  Points  of  the  Remonstrants.  Wesleyan  View  of  Original  Sin.  Doctrine  of 
Common  Sufficient  Grace  Refuted.  Grace  in  Regeneration  Invincible.  The  Soul 
Passive  in  its  Quickening.  No  Salvation  for  the  Heathen  without  Scripture  Instru- 
mentality. -         -        -        - pp_  579-588. 

LECTURE  XLIX. — Arminian  Theory  of  Redetnption,  {continued.') 
Conditional  Decrees  ImpHed  in  Synergism.  The  Result  Conditioned  and  not 
the  Decree.  Arg.  True  Nature  of  the  Will  Stated,  Calvinistic  View  Agreeable,  Ar- 
minian Inconsistent  thereto.  Motive  and  Disposition  Defined.  Free-Agency  of  the 
Natural  Will,  though  decisively  Determined  to  Carnality.  Inability  does  not  Super- 
sede Responsibility.  Regeneration  Perfects  Free-Agency.  Hence  Responsibility  in 
both  States. pp.  859-899. 

LECTURE  L.— Faith. 

Kinds  of  Faith.  Temporary  and  Saving,  Different.  Christ  the  Special  Object 
of  Saving  Faith.  ImpHcit  or  Intelligent  ?  View  of  Romanists  refuted,  of  Protestants 
sustained.  Elements  in  Saving  Faith.  Sin  of  Unbelief.  Historical  Faith  Distin- 
guished. Faith  the  Fruit  of  Regeneration.  Objections  and  Answers.  Fides  Formata 
of  Rome,  Distinction.  Assurance  of  Faith  Distinguished.  The  Suitable  Organ  of 
Justification. pp.  600-612. 

LECTURE  LI.— Union  to  Christ. 

By  what  similitudes  described?  Its  results  to  believers.  Its  instrumental  and 
essential  bond.  How  it  resembles  and  differs  from  the  union  of  the  Father  and  the 
Son  —  and  that  of  the  divinty  and  humanity  of  the  Son.  It  is  not  merely  that  of  a 
Leader  and  his  followers.  It  is  not  a  partaking  of  the  substance  of  the  Godhead. 
Indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  this  union.     The  union  indissoluble,      pp.  612-617. 

LECTURE  Lll.—Jtistification. 

Importance  of  correct  views  of  the  doctrine.  Scripture  idea  of.  Romish  view. 
Justification  not  by  inherent  grace  and  its  works.  Both  pardon  and  adoption.  Both 
Christ's  active  and  passive  obedience  is  the  ground  of  it.     What  is  adoption  ? 

pp.  618-627. 

LECTURE  LIII. — Justification,  (continued.) 
Works  cannot  justify.     James  reconciled  to  Paul.    Christ's  work  was  not  to  lower 
the  Law.     Faith  not  our  Imputed  Righteousness.    But  Justification  only  on  account 
of  Christ's  merit. pp.  628-640. 

LECTURE  LI  v.— Justification,  {concluded.) 
Imputation.     Justification  an  Act.     How  related  to  the  Judgment  Day  ?     Faith 
only  instrument  of  Justification.    How  related  to  Sanctification  ?     To  good  works  ? 
Antinomian  result  rejected.  --------     pp_  64o-6i;o. 

LECTURE  LV.— Repentance. 
Repentance  of  two  kinds.     Legal  and  Evangelical  Repentance.     Author  of  True 
Repentance.     It  follows  new  birth.     How  related  to  Faith.     Yet  no  Satisfaction  for 
Guilt.     Fruits  meet  for  Repentance.  ---...     pp_  651-660. 


6  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

LECTURE  LVI.—Sanctifuation,  and  Good  Works. 

Sanctification  Defined.  How  related  to  New  Birth  and  Justification.  Agent  and 
Means.     Never  Perfect  in  this  life.     Wesleyan  view.  -         .         -     pp.  660-674. 

LECTURE  LVIL— Sanctification,  and  Good  Works,  {continued.) 

Sanctification  is  of  the  whole  man :  and  progressive.  EvangeUcal  good  work 
what?  Merit  what?  Congruous  and  Condign.  None  in  Behever's  works.  Nor 
Natural  Man's.  Concilia  Ferfectionis  rejected.  Supererogation  refuted.  Standards 
of  Sanctification.     Value  of  Christ's  Example  therefor.        -         -         -     PP-  674-687. 

LECTURE  L  VIIL—Perseveratice  of  the  Saints. 
Differing  views  of.     Perseverance  Defined  and  Proved.     Objections  to  recon- 
ciled.    Tendency  of  the  Doctrine.  pp.  687-698. 

LECTURE  LLX. — Assurance  of  Grace  and  Salvation. 

Distinguished  by  Confession  from  Faith.  Doctrine  of  Rome,  and  of  first  Re- 
formers, touching.  Not  of  the  Essence  of  Saving  Faith.  The  Grace  attainable. 
Means:  Self-examination,  asserted.  Objections:  as,  e.g.,  Fostering  carnal  security. 
The  Witness.  pp.  698-713. 

LECTURE  EX.— Prayer. 

Definition  and  Parts.  Proper  Objects.  Grounds  of  Duty.  Objections  to,  from 
God's  Perfections,  and  Stability  of  Natural  Law.  Rule  of  Prayer.  Extent  of  war- 
rant for.     Secret,  Social,  etc.     Model  of.     Physical  Prayer.     Test.      -     pp.  713-725. 

LECTURE  LXI.—  The  Sacraments. 

Definition.  Sacraments  are  Seals.  Parts  of  Sacraments.  Qualities  of  Ele- 
ments. Sacramental  Union  what?  Sacraments  only  Two :  Under  each  Dispensa- 
tion.    Spurious  Romish  Sacraments.         .-..-.       pp.  726-736. 

LECTURE  LXII.—  The  Sacraments,   {continued.) 

Doctrine  of  Intention.  Opus  Operatum.  Are  they  Necessary  to  Salvation? 
By. whom  Administered?     The  Indelible  Character  Rejected.         -         pp.  737-748. 

Appendix. 

Apostohc  Succession  and  Sacramental  Grace  shown  to  be  a  Blunder,     pp.  748-757. 

LECTURE  LXLLL— Baptism. 

A  Permanent  Ordinance.  Signification  of  Baptismal  Regeneration.  Formulary. 
John's  Baptism.  Baptism  of  Christ,  for  what?  Mode  of  Baptism  and  Meaning  of 
Words. -         -         -        -         pp.  758-767. 

LECTURE  LXL v.— Baptism -tke  Mode. 

Mode  of  for  all  Ages  and  Climates.  Mode  best  Suited  to  Significance.  Analo- 
gy of  Figurative  Baptisms.  Mode  of  New  Testament  Cases.  Ecclesiastical  Results 
of  Immersionists'  Dogma.     Primitive  Mode.  .        .        .        _        pp.  768-777. 

LECTURE  LX v.— Subjects  of  Baptism. 

Proper  Subjects,  Who?  Baptism  of  Infants  not  Unreasonable.  Argued  from 
Infant  Membership  and  Abrahamic  Covenant.  Argued  from  Unlikelihood  of  their 
Exclusion.     From  Great  Commission.        ------     pp,  777-788. 

LECTURE  LXVI. — Subjects  of  Baptism,  {concluded.) 

Proselyte  Baptism  Implies  Infant  Baptism.  Baptism  of  Houses.  Infants  Ad- 
dressed as  in  the  Church.  Historical  Argument.  Infant  Baptism  does  not  Corrupt 
Church.     Relation  of  Baptized  to  Church.         -        .        _        _        .        pp.  789-799. 

LECTURE  LX VII.— The  Lord's  Supper. 

Definition,  Names  and  History.  Elements  and  Sacramental  Acts.  Doctrine 
of  Real  Presence.     Transubstantiation.     Consubstantiation.  -  pp.  8cx>-8o8. 

LECTURE  LXVIIL— The  Lord's  Supper,  {concluded.) 

Doctrine  of  Calvin  as  to  Real  Presence  compared  with  that  of  Zwinglius  and 
Westminster.     Supper  not  a  Sacrifice.     Private  Communions  Disapproved.     Laity 
should  have  the  Cup.     Proper  Administerer.     Sacramental  Efficiency,  what  ? 
pp.  809-817. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  7 

LECTURE  LXIX.- Death  of  Believers 

Why  Death  befalls  the  Justified.  Souls  Immortal.  Benefits  received  by  Justi- 
"fied  at  Death.  Sanctification  then  complete.  No  Intermediate  Place.  Sleep  of 
Souls  rejected.  -- pp.  817-829 

LECTURE  LXX.—  The  Resurrection. 

Speculations  on.  Docti-ine  Defined.  Qualities  and  Identity  of  Resurrection 
bodies.  Objections  dissolved.  Doctrine  proved  from  Scripture.  How  related  to 
•Christ's.     Two  Resurrection^  and  Pre-Adventism.        -        .        -        -    pp.  829-841 

LECTURE  LXXI. — General  Judg^itent  and  Eternal  Life. 

Purposes  of  such  Judgment.  Proofs  of  Time,  Place,  etc.  The  Judge  Christ. 
Saints  Assessors.  Who  Judged?  Rule?  Sentences.  Nature  of  Saints' Blessed- 
ness.    Place  of. pp.  842-852. 

LECTURE  LXXLL.     Nature  and  Duration  of  Llell-Torments. 

The  Punishment  of  Wicked,  what?  Speculations  as  to  Duration.  UniversaUsm. 
Objections  of  to  Scripture  Doctrine.  Meaning  of  Bible  Words.  Everlasting  pun- 
ishments proved.         -..._.----    pp.  852-862. 

LE  C  TURE  LXXHL     The  Civil  Magistrate. 

True  theory  of  Civil  Government.  Social  Contract  Theory.  Civil  and  Nat- 
ural Liberty,  what  ?  Equality.  Objects  and  Limits  of  civil  Powers.  Higher  Law, 
and  Private  Judgment.     Passive  Obedience.     Right  of  Revolution.     -     pp.  862-872 

LECTURE  LXXLV. — Religious  Liberty  and  Church  and  State. 

Religious  Liberty  and  Private  Judgment  Established.  Persecutions  for  opinions 
Tcjected.  High  Theory  of  Church  Establishments  rejected.  Chalmers'  Theory 
considered.     Proper  Relations  of  Church  and  State.     Civil  Powers  over. 

pp.  873-887 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


The  note  Ad  Lectorem,  prefixed  by  the  Students  to  the  first  edition  which  they 
printed,  sufficiently  explains  the  origin  and  nature  of  this  course  of  Theology.  The 
experience  of  several  years  in  teaching  it,  has  disclosed  at  once  its  utility  and  its 
defects.  Much  labor  has  been  devoted  to  the  removal  of  the  latter,  and  to  addi- 
tional research  upon  every  important  point  of  discussion.  The  syllabus  has  been 
enriched  with  a  great  number  of  references.  Two  hundred  and  sixty  pages  of  new 
matter  have  been  added.  The  book  is  attended  with  full  Table  of  Contents  and 
Index;  fitting  it  for  reference.  A  multitude  of  typographical  errors  have  been 
f^emoved;  and  the  larger  type  and  better  material,  it  is  ti-usted,  will  concur  to  make  the 
book  not  only  more  sightly,  but  more  durable  and  useful. 

The  main  design,  next  to  the  estabhshment  of  Divine  Truth,  has  been  to  furn- 
ish students  in  divinity,  pastors,  and  intelligent  lay-Christians,  a  view  of  the  whole 
field  of  Christian  theology,  without  swelHng  the  work  to  a  size  too  unwieldy  and 
costly  for  the  purposes  of  instruction.  Every  head  of  divinity  has  received  at  least 
brief  attention.  The  discussion  is  usually  compact.  The  reader  is  requested  to  bear 
in  mind,  that  the  work  is  only  styled  "Syllabus  and  Notes"  of  a  course  in  theology. 
The  full  expansion  or  exhaustive  illustration  of  topics  has  not  been  promised.  Hence 
unless  the  reader  has  already  a  knowledge  of  these  topics  derived  from  copious  pre- 
vious study,  he  should  not  expect  to  master  these  discussions  by  a  cursoiy  reading. 
He  is  candidly  advertised  that  many  parts  will  remain  but  partially  appreciated, 
unless  he  shall  find  himself  wiUing  either  to  read  enough  of  the  authorities  referred  to 
in  the  Syllabus,  to  place  him  at  the  proper  point  of  view  ;  or  else  to  ponder  the  oudine 
of  the  arguments  by  the  efforts  of  mature  and  vigorous  thought  for  himself,  and  thus 
till  out  the  full  body  of  discussion. 

The  work  is  now  humbly  offered  again  to  the  people  of  God,  in  the  hope  that  it 
may  assist  to  establish  them  in  the  old  and  orthodox  doctrines  which  have  been  the 

power  and  glory  of  the  Refomied  Churches. 

ROBERT  L.  DABNEY. 
Union  Theo.  Seminary,  Va.,  Aug.  15th,  1878. 


LECTURES. 


NATURAL  THEOLOGY. 


LECTURE  L 

PREFATORY,  AND  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  Theology ;  and  what  its  Divisions  ?     Prove  that  there  is  a  Science  of 
Natural  Theology. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  i,  Qu.  2-3.  Thornwell,  Collected  Works,  Vol.  i.  Lect.  1, 
PP-  25-36 

2.  What  two  Lines  of  Argument   to   prove  the   Existence   of  a  God  ?      What 
the  a  priori  Arguments  ?     Are  they  valid  ? 

Stillingfleet,  Origines  Sacrae,  bk.  iii.  ch.  i.  Thornwell,  Lect.  ii,  p.  51,  &c. 
Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  Discourse  of  the  Being  and  Attributes  of  God,  c.  1-12 
Chalmers'  Nat.  Theol.,  Lect.  iii.  Dick.  Lect.  xvi.  Cudworth's  Intellect. 
System. 

3.  State  the  Arguments  of  Clarke.     Of  Howe.     Are   they   sound?     Are   they 
a  priori  ? 

Dr.  S.  Clarke,  as  above.  J.  Howe's  Living  Temple,  ch.  H,  ^9  to  end.  Locke's 
Essay  on  the  Human  Understanding,     bk.  iv.  ch.  10. 

4.  State  the  Argument  of  Breckinridge's  Theology.     Is  it  valid  ? 
"Knowledge  of  God  Objecdve,"    bk.  i,  ch   5.      Review   of  Breck.  Theol.  in 
Central  Presbyterian,  March  to  April,  1858. 

5.  Give  an  oudine  of  the  Arg.  from  Design.  Paley,  Nat.  Theol.  ch.  i,  2,  3. 
Xenophon'si^/£wt7ra(5z7/a, lib.  i,  ch.  v.  Cicero De Nattira Deorum,Xih.\\ ^2-^. 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  I.     Theological  Treatises  generally. 

TT  is  justly  said:     Every  science  should  begin  by  defining  its 
-*-     terms,  in  order  to  shun  verbal  fallacies.     The  word  Theology, 

Idtou  /.oyoQ),  has  undergone  peculiar  mutations 
Theology,  mat?  .^  ^^^^  history  of  science.  The  Greeks  often  used 
it  for  their  theories  of  theogony  and  cosmogony,  Aristotle  uses 
it  in  a  more  general  form,  as  equivalent  to  all  metaphysics;  divid- 
ing theoretical  philosophy  into  physical,  mathematical,  and  theo- 
logical. Many  of  the  early  Christian  fathers  used  it  in  the  restricted 
sense  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity:  (scil.  hoavw^-  bSzoAuyo::). 
But  now  it  has  come  to  be  used,  commonly,  to  describe  the 
whole  science  of  God's  being  and  nature,  and  relations  to  the  crea- 
ture. The  name  is  appropriate  :  "  Science  of  God."  Th.  Aqui- 
nas :  "Theologia  a  Deo  docetur,  Deiim  docet,  ad  Dewn  duett," 
God  its  author,  its  subject,  its  end. 

The  distribution  of  Theology  into   didactic,   polemic,   and 

practical,    is    sufficiently    known.      Now,    all 
Its  Divisions.  didactic  inculcation  of  truth  is  indirect  refu- 

tation of  the  opposite  error.     Polemic  Theology  has  been  de- 
fined as  direct   refutation    of  error.      The    advantage    of  this 

5 


6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

has  been  supposed  to  be,  that  the  way  for  easiest  and  most 
thorough  refutation  is  to  systematize  the  error,  with  refer- 
ence to  its  first  principle,  or  -rmzov  (peodo:;  But  the  attempt 
to  lorm  a  science  of  polemics,  different  from  Didactic  Theolo- 
gy fails;  because  error  never  has  true  method.  Confusion 
is  its  characteristic.  The  system  of  discussion,  formed  on  its 
false  method,  cannot  be  scientific.  Hence,  separate  treatises 
on  polemics  have  usually  slidden  into  the  methods  of  didactics  ; 
or  they  have  been  confused.  Again  :  Indirect  refutation  is 
more  effectual  than  direct.  There  is  therefore,  in  this  course, 
no  separate  polemic  ;  but  what  is  said  against  errors  is  divided 
between  the  historical  and  didactic. 

Theology  is  divided  into  natural  and  revealed,  according  to 
the   sources    of  our  knowledge  of  it ;   from 
Is  there^a  Natural       natural   reason ;    from    revelation.     What   is 
^°°^'  scietice?      Knowledge     demonstrated      and 

methodized.  That  there  is  a  science  of  Natural  Theology, 
of  at  least  some  certain  and  connected  propositions,  although 
limited,  and  insufficient  for  salvation  at  best,  is  well  argued 
from  Scripture,  e.  g.  Ps.  xix  :  1-7.  Acts  xiv  :  15;  or  xvii  : 
23.  Rom.  i  :  19 ;  ii  :  14,  &c.;  and  from  the  fact  that  nearly 
all  heathens  have  religious  ideas  and  rites  of  worship.  Not 
that  religious  ideas  are  innate:  but  the  capacity  to  estab- 
lish some  such  ideas,  from  natural  data,  is  innate.  Con- 
sider further  :  Is  not  this  implied  in  man's  capacity  to  receive 
a  revealed  theology  ?  Does  revelation  demonstrate  God's  exis- 
tence;  or  assume  it?  Does  it  rest  the  first  truths  on  pure 
dogmatism,  or  on  evidence  which  man  apprehends  ?  The  latter ; 
and  then  man  is  assumed  to  have  some  natural  capacity  for  such 
apprehension.  But  if  nature  reflects  any  light  concerning  God, 
(as  Scripture  asserts),  then  man  is  capable  of  deriving  some 
theology  from  nature. 

Some  old  divines  were  wont  to  deny  that  there  was  any 
science    of   Natural   Theology,    and   to   say 

^        ^^   '  that  without  revelation,  man  would  not  nat- 

urally learn  its  first  truth.  They  attribute  the  grains  of 
truth,  mixed  with  the  various  polytheisms  to  the  remnants 
of  tradition  descending  from  Noah's  family.  They  urge  that 
some  secluded  tribes,  Hottentots,  Australians,  have  no  re- 
ligious ideas;  that  some  men  are  sincere  atheists  after  re- 
flection ;  and  that  there  is  the  wildest  variety,  yea  contra- 
diction, between  the  different  schools  of  heathens.  These 
divines  seem  to  fear  lest,  by  granting  a  Natural  Theology,  they 
should  grant  too  much  to  natural  reason ;  a  fear  ungrounded  and 
extreme.  They  are  in  danger  of  a  worse  consequence ;  reduc- 
ing man's  capacity  for  receiving  divine  verities  so  low,  that  the 
rational  sceptic  will  be  able  to  turn  upon  them  and  say  :  "Then 
by  so  inept  a  creature,  the  guarantees  of  a  true  revelation  cannot 
be  certainly  apprehended." 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY,  7 

To  reply  more  in  detail ;  I  grant  much  influence  to  prim- 
ps   r  eval  traditions,  (a    subject  of  great    interest 

learnedly  discussed  in  Theo.  Gale's  Court 
of  the  Gentiles).  But  that  so  inconstant  a  cause  is  able 
to  perpetuate  in  men  these  fixed  convictions  of  the  invisi- 
ble, shows  in  man  a  natural  religious  capacity.  That  there 
have  been  atheistic  persons  and  tribes,  is  inconclusive.  Some 
tribes  deduce  no  science  of  geometry,  statics,  or  even  num- 
bers ;  but  this  does  not  prove  man  non-logical.  Some  pro- 
fess to  disbelieve  axioms,  as  Hume  that  of  causation ;  but  this 
is  far  from  proving*  man  incapable  of  a  natural  science  of  in- 
duction. Besides,  the  atheism  of  these  tribes  is  doubtful ;  savages 
are  shrewd,  suspicious,  and  fond  of  befooling  inquisitive  stran- 
gers by  assumed  stupidity.  And  last :  the  differences  of  Natural 
theology  among  polytheists  are  a  diversity  in  unity  ;  all  involve 
the  prime  truths  ;  a  single  first  cause,  responsibility,  guilt,  a  fu- 
ture life,  future  rewards  and  punishments. 

2.  The  first  truth   of  theology  is   the    existence  of  God. 

The  first  question  which  meets  us  is :     How 
Existence   of  God:    ^^^    ^  ^j^      existence    of    God?      Dr, 

How  Ivnown  r  /^i       i        tt     ,  rr-  -^-11 

Charles  Hodge    [Systematic  Theology,  part 

I  chapter  i.]  states  and  argues  that  the  knowledge  of 
it  is  "innate."  This  assertion  he  explains  by  saying  that  it  is 
"intuitive."  It  must  be  understood,  however,  that  he  also  em- 
ploys this  term  in  a  sense  of  his  own.  With  him,  any  truth  is 
intuitive,  which  is  immediately  perceived  by  the  mind.  He  dis- 
sents from  the  customary  definition  of  philosophers,  [as  Sir  W. 
Hamilton]  which  requires  simplicity,  or  primariness,  as  the  trait 
of  an  intuitive  judgment.  He  explains  himself  by  saying,  that 
to  Newton,  all  the  theorems  of  Euclid's  first  book  were  as  imme- 
diately seen  as  the  axioms ;  and  therefore,  to  him,  intuitiox;.:. 
We  shall  see,  in  a  subsequent  lecture,the  dangers  of  this  view.  I 
hold,  with  the  current  of  philosophers,  that  an  intuitive  truth  is 
[cz]  one  that  is  seen  true  without  any  premise,  [(5]  so  seen  by  all 
minds  which  comprehend  itsterms,[^]  necessarily  seen.  Strictly, 
it  cannot  be  said,  that  any  intuitive  truth  is  innate.  The  power 
of  perceiving  it  is  innate.  The  explanation  of  the  case  of  New- 
ton and  of  similiar  ones,  is  easy :  To  his  vigorous  mind,  the 
step  from  an  intuitive  premise  to  a  near  cbnclusion,was  so  prompt 
and  easy  as  to  attract  no  attention.  Yet,  tlie  step  zvas  takeji. 
When  Dr.  Hod^e  calls  men's  knowledge  that  there  is  a  God  "z//- 
««/^,"  i.  e., "  intuitive,"  his  mistake  is  in  confoundmg  a  smgle, 
short,  clear  step  of  deduction,  made  by  common  sense,  with  an 
intuition.  He,  very  properly,  exalts  the  ethical  evidence  into 
the  chief  place.  But  the  amount  of  it  is  this  :  "  The  senti- 
ment of  responsibility  (which  is  immediate)  is  intuitive."  This 
implies  an  Obligator.  True.  But  what  is  the  evolution  of  this 
iraphcation,  save  (a short,  easy,  and  obvious  step  of)  reasoning? 
Divines  and  Christian  philosophers,  in  the    attempt  to   ex- 


8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

plain  the  belief  in  a  God,  which  all  men  have,  as  a  rational  pro- 
cess, have  resolved  it  into  the  one  or  the  other  of  two  modes 
of  argument,  XhQ  a  priori  Tind  a  posteriori.  The  latter  infers  a 
God  by  reasoning  backwards  from  effects  to  cause.  The  for- 
mer should  accordingly  mean  reasoning  downwards  from  cause 
to  effect;  the  meaning  attached  to  the  phrase  by  Aristotle  and 
his  followers.  But  now  the  term  a  priori  reasoning  is  used,  in 
this  connection,  to  denote  a  conclusion  gained  without  the  aid  of 
experience,  from  the  primary  judgments,  and  especially,  the  at- 
tempt to  infer  the  truth  of  a  notion,  directly  from  its  nature  or 
condition  in  the  mind. 

It  appears  to  be  common  among  recent  writers  (as  Dick, 

A  Priori  Argument.  Chalmers'  Natural  Theology),  to  charge  Dr. 
What,  and  by  Whom  Samuel  Clarke  as  the  chief  asserter  of  the 
Urged?  ^  priori  dirgvivatnt  among  Englishmen.     This 

is  erroneous.  It  may  be  more  correctly  said  to  have  been 
first  intimated  by  Epicurus  (whose  atomic  theory  excluded 
\\\Q  a  posteriori  argument;)  as  appears  from  a  curious  passage 
in  Cicero,  de  tiatura  Deoriun,  Lib.  I.  c.  i6.  It  was  more  ac- 
curately stated  by  the  celebrated  Des  Cartes  in  his  meditations  ; 
and  naturalized  to  the  English  mind  rather  by  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet  than  by  Dr.  Clarke.  The  student  may  find  a  very  dis- 
tinct statement  of  it  in  the  Origines  Sacroe  of  the  former,  book 
III,  chapter  i,  §  14:  while  Dr.  Clarke,  §  8  of  his  Discourse, 
expressly  says  that  the  personal  intelligence  of  God  must  be 
proved  a  posteriori,  and  not  a  priori.  But  Des  Cartes  having 
founded  his  psychology  on  the  two  positions :  ist.  Cogito;  ergo 
Slim  ;  and  2nd.  The  Ego  is  spirit,  not  matter ;  proceeds  to  ask : 
Among  all  the  ideas  in  the  consciousness,  how  shall  the  true 
be  distinguished  from  the  false,  seeing  all  are  obviously  not 
consistent  ?  As  to  primary  ideas,  his  answer  is ;  by  the  clear- 
ness with  which  they  commend  themselves  to  our  conscious- 
ness as  immediate  truths.  Now,  among  our  ideas,  no  other 
is  so  clear  and  unique  as  that  of  a  first  Cause,  eternal  and  in- 
finite. Hence  we  may  immediately  accept  it  as  consciously 
true.  Moreover,  that  we  have  this  idea  of  a  God,  proves  there 
must  be  a  God  ;  because  were  there  none,  the  rise  of  His  idea 
in  our  thought  could  not  be  accounted  for;  just  as  the  idea  of 
triangles  implies  the  existence  of  some  triangle.  Now  the  a 
priori  argument  of  StiUingfleet  is  but  a  specific  application  of 
Des  Cartes'  method.  We  find,  says  he,  that  in  thinking  of  a 
God  we  must  think  Him  as  eternal,  self-existent,  and  neces- 
sarily existent.  But  since  we  indisputably  do  think  a  God,  it  is 
impossible  but  that  God  is.  Since  necessary  existence  is  una- 
voidably involved  in  our  idea  of  a  God,  therefore  His  existence 
must  necessarily  be  granted. 

Now    surely  this    process  is  not    necessarily   inconclusive. 

Its  Defect  because    it  is  a  priori',   there  are  processes, 

in    which    we    validly    determine    the    truth 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  9 

of  a  notion  by  simple  inspection  of  its  contents  and  con- 
ditions. But  the  defect  of  Stillingfleet's  reasoning  is,  that 
it  does  not  give  the  correct  account  of  our  thought.  If 
the  student  will  inspect  the  two  propositions,  which  form 
an  enthymeme,  he  will  see  that  the  conclusion  depends  on 
this  assumption,  as  its  major  premise :  That  we  can  have  no 
idea  in  our  consciousness,  for  which  there  is  not  an  answering 
objective  reahty.  (Tliis  is,  obviously,  the  assumed  major  ;  be- 
cause without  it  the  ethymeme  can  only  contain  the  conclusion, 
that  God,  if  there  is  one,  necessarily  exists.)  But  that  major 
premise  is,  notoriously,  not  universally  true. 

Now,    instead    of    saying    that    Dr.     Clarke's    method,  in 

the    Discourse    of  the  Being,    &c.,    of  God, 
CkriFe!""^"'  °^  ^''  ^'    is   the    a  priori,    it   is   more   correct  to  say 

(with  Hamilton's  Reid)  that  it  is  an  a  pos- 
teriori argument,  or  with  Kant,  Cosniological,  inferring  the 
-existence  of  God  from  His  effects ;  but  disfigured  at  one 
or  two  points  by  useless  Cartesian  elements.  His  first  posi- 
tion is :  Since  something  now  exists,  something  has  existed 
from  eternity.  This,  you  will  find,  is  the  starting  point  of 
the  argument,  with  all  reasoners ;  and  it  is  solid.  For,  if 
at  any  time  in  the  past  eternity,  there  had  been  absolute- 
ly nothing,  since  nothing  cannot  be  a  cause  of  existence, 
time  and  space  must  have  remained  forever  blank  of  existence. 
Hence,  2d.,  argues  Dr.  Clarke  :  there  has  been,  from  eternity, 
5ome  immutable  and  independent  Being:  because  an  eternal 
succession  of  dependent  beings,  without  independent  first  cause, 
is  impossible.  3d.  This  Being,  as  independent  eternally,  must 
be  self-existent,  that  is,  necessarily  existing.  For  its  eternal  in- 
dependence shows  that  the  spring,  or  causative  source  of  its  ex- 
istence, could  not  be  outside  of  itself;  it  is  therefore  within  itself 
forever.  But  the  only  true  idea  of  such  self-existence  is,  that  the 
idea  of  its  non-existence  would  be  an  express  contradiction.  And 
here.  Dr.  Clarke  very  needlessly  adds  :  our  notion  that  the  ex- 
istence is  necessary,  proves  that  it  cannot  but  exist.  He  reasons 
also  :  our  conceptions  of  infinite  time  and  infinite  space  are  nec- 
essary :  we  cannot  but  think  them.  But  they  are  not  substance  : 
they  are  only  modes  of  substance.  Unless  some  substance  ex- 
ists of  which  they  are  modes,  they  cannot  exist,  and  so,  would 
not  be  thought.  Hence,  there  must  be  an  infinite  and  eternal 
substance.  4th.  The  substajice  of  this  Being  is  not  comprehens- 
ible by  us  :  but  this  does  not  make  the  evidence  of  its  existence 
less  certain.  For,  5th.  Several  of  its  attributes  are  demon- 
strable; as  that  it  must  be,  6th,  Infinite  and  omnipresent;  7th, 
that  it  must  be  One,  and  8th,  that  it  must  be  intelligent  and 
free,  &c.  The  conclusion  is,  that  this  Being  must  be  Creator  and 
God,  unless  the  universe  can  itself  fulfil  the  conditions  of  eterni- 
ty, necessary  self-existence,  infinitude,  and  intelligence  and  free 
choice.     This  is  Pantheism :   which  he  shows  cannot  be  true. 


lO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

On  his  argument  as  a  whole,  I  remark,  that  it  is  in  the 
main    vahd,    because    it    is    in    the    main    a 
Valid, because  a  pos-  postctiori:    it   appeals   to  the  intuitive  judg- 
ment  of  cause,  to    infer   from  finite  effects 
an  infinite  first  cause.    The  Cartesian  features  attached  to  the  3d 
proposition  are  an  excrescence ;  but  we  may  remove  them,  and 
leave  the  chain  adamantine.     We  will  prune  them  away,  not  for 
the  reasons  urged  by  Dr.  Chalmers,  which  are  in  several  partic- 
ulars as  invalid  as  Dr.  Clarke  ;    but    for  the    reason  already    ex- 
plained on  pages  8  and  9,     I  only  add,  it  seems  to  argue  that  time 
and    space    can    only   be    conceived   by    us     as     modes     of 
substance ;  and  therefore  infinite  and  eternal  substance  must  ex- 
ist.    The  truth  here  is :  that  we  cannot    conceive    of  finite  sub- 
stance or  events,  without  placing  it  in  time   and  space  ;    a  differ- 
ent proposition  from  Dr.  Clarke's. 

I    think    we    have    the    metaphysical    argument    for    the 
being   of  a    God,  stated  in    a  method    free 
^^Howe's  Demonstra-    ^^^^    ^j^^^^    objections,    by    the    great   Puri- 
tan divine,  John  Howe.     He  flourished  about 
1650,  A.  D.,  and  prior  to  Dr.  Clarke.     See  his  Living  Tem- 
ple,   chapter   H.     He   begins   thus :    i.  Since   we    now   exist, 
something   has    existed   from   eternity.      2.    Hence,    at    least, 
some  uncaused  Being,  for  the  eternal  has  nothing  prior  to  it.     3. 
Hence  some  independent  Being.     4.  Hence  that  Being    exists 
necessarily;   for  its  independent,  eternal,   inward  spring  of  exis- 
tence cannot  be  conceived  as  possibly  at  any  time    inoperative. 
5 .  This  Being  must  be  self-active ;  active,  because,  if  other  beings 
did  not  spring  from  its  action,  they  must  all  be    eternal,  and  so 
independent,  and  necessary,  which  things  are  impossible  for  be- 
ings variously  organized  and  changeable  ;  and  self-active, because 
in  eternity  nothing  was  before  Him  to    prompt    His   action.     6. 
This  Being  is  living ;  for  self-prompted  activity  is  our  very  idea 
of  life.     7.   He  is  of  boundless  intelligence,  power,  freedom,  &c. 
This    argument    is    in  all    parts  well  knit.     But  it    is    ob- 
viously  a   posteriori ;  for   all   depends  from 

What  needed  to  com-  •        i        j    j      i.-  r  •  c 

pleteit?  ^     smiple    deduction,    Irom    a    universe    01 

effects,  back  to  their  cause ;  and  in  the 
same  way  are  inferred  the  properties  of  that  cause.  The 
only  place  where  the  argument  needs  completion,  is  at  the 
fifth  step.  So  far  forth,  the  proof  is  perfect,  that  some  eter- 
nal, uncaused,  necessary  Being  exists.  But  how  do  we  prove 
that  this  One  created  all  other  Beings?  The  answer  is:  these 
others  must  all  be  either  eternal  or  temporal.  May  it  be, all  are  eter- 
nal and  one?  then  all  are  uncaused,  independent,  self-existent, 
and  necessary.  This,  we  shall  see,  is  Pantheism.  If  the  rest 
are  temporal,  then  they  were  all  caused,  but  by  what?  Either  by 
the  one  uncaused,  eternal  Being;  or  by  other  similar  temporal  be- 
ings generating  them.  But  the  latter  is  the  theory  of  an  infinite, 
independent  scries  of   finite    organisms,   each  one    dependent. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  11 

When,  therefore,  we  shall  have  stopped  these  two  breaches,  by 
refuting  Pantheism  and  the  hypothesis  of  infinite  series,  the'  de- 
monstration will  be  perfect. 

Kant    has    selected    this    cosmological    argument,    as    one 

Cavil  of  Kant.  of  his   "antinomies,"    illustrating    the   inval- 

idity of  the  a  ptiori  reason,  when  applied 
to  empirical  things.  His  objection  to  its '  validity  seems  to 
amount  to.  this  :  Tlfat  the  proposition  "Nothing  can  exist  with- 
out a  cause  out  of  itself,"  cannot  be  absolute  :  For  if  it  were, 
then  a  cause  must  be  assigned  for  the  First  Cause  himself. 

But  let  us  give  the  intuition  in  more  accurate  form  :  "  Noth- 
ing can  begin  to  exist,  without  a  cause  out  of  itself"  Kant's 
cavil  has  now  disappeared,  as  a  moment's  consideration  will 
show.  The  necessary  step  of  the  reason  from  the  created  things 
up  to  a  creator,  is  now  correctly  explained.  "  Every  effect  must 
have  a  cause."  True.  An  effect  is  an  existence  or  phenomenon 
which  has  a  beginning.  Such,  obviously,  is  each  created  thing. 
Hence,  it  must  have  proceeded  from  a  cause  which  had  no  be- 
ginning, i.  e.,,a  God.  Moreover:  I  cannot  too  early  utter  my 
protest  against  Kant's  theory,  that  our  regulative,  intuitive  prin- 
ciples of  reason  are  merely  suggestive,  (while  imperative,)  and 
have  no  objective  validity.  Were  this  true,  our  whole  intelli- 
gence would  be  a  delusion.  On  the  other  hand,  every  law  of 
thought  is  also  a  law  of  existence  and  of  reality.  Knowledge 
of  this  fact  is  original  with  every  mind  when  it  begins  to  think, 
is  as  intuitive  as  any  other  principle  of  the  reason,  and  is  an  ab- 
solutely necessary  condition  of  all  other  knowledge.  Moreover  : 
the  whole  train  of  man's  a  posteriori  knowledge  is  a  continual 
demonstration  of  this  principle,  proving  its  trustworthiness  by 
the  perfect  correspondence  between  our  subjective  intuitions  and 
empirical  truths. 

Now    Platonism   held  that  all  substance  is    uncaused  and 

Platonic  Scheme.  eternal,  as  to  its  being.  All  finite,  ration- 
al spirits,  said  this  theology,  are  emana- 
tions of  To  "ON,  the  eternal  intelligence;  and  all  matter 
has  been  from  eternity,  as  inert,  passive  chaotic  "}7-y^.  Pla- 
tonism referred  all  organization,  all  fashioning  (the  only 
creation  it  admitted),  all  change,  however  either  directly  or 
indirectly,  to  the  intelligent  First  Cause.  This  scheme  does 
not  seem  very  easily  refuted  by  natural  reason.  Let  it 
be  urged  that  the  very  notion  of  the  First  Cause  implies  its 
singleness ;  and,  more  solidly,  that  the  unity  of  plan  and  work- 
ing seen  in  nature,  points  to  only  one,  single,  ultimate  cause  ;  Plato 
could  reply  that  he  ■  made  only  one  First  Cause,  To  "  ON,  for 
olq  is  inert,  and  only  the  recipient  of  causation.  Let  that  rule 
be  urged,  which  Hamilton  calls  his  '  law  of  parcimony,'  that 
hypotheses  must  include  nothing  more  than  is  necessary  to  ac- 
count for  effects  :  Plato  could  say  :  No  :  the  reason  as  much 
demands  the  supposition    of  a  material  pre-existing,   as   of  aa 


J  2  SYLL^UJUS    AND    NOTES 

almighty  Workman  ;  for  even  omnipotence  cannot  work,  with 
nothing' to  work  on.  Indeed, so  far  as  I  know.all  human  systems, 
Plato's,  Epicurus,'  Zeno's,  Pythagoras,'  the  Peripatetic,  had  this 
common  feature  ;  that  it  is  self-evident,  substance  cannot  rise  out 
of  nihil  into  esse  ;  that  ex  nihilo  nihil  fit.  And  we  shall  see  how 
obstinate  isthe  tendency  of  philosophy  to  relapse  to  this  maxim, 
in  the  instances  of  Spinoza's  Pantheism,  and  Kant's  and  Hamil- 
ton's theory  of  causation.  Indeed  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  human  mind,  unaided  by  revelation,  would  ev^er  have  ad- 
vanced farther  than  this.  It  was  from  an  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  history  of  philosophy,  that  the  apostle  declared,  (He- 
brews xi :  3,)  the  doctrine  of  an  almighty  creation  out  of  nothing 
is  one  of  pure  faith. 

Dr..  Clarke,  as  you  saw,  does  indeed  attempt  a  rational  ar- 

1-      T.1  .    •      gument  that  the  eternity  of  matter  is  impos- 
Can     the     Platonic     &  ^  i  ^      u 

Doctrine  of  the  Eterni-  sible.  The  eternal  must  be  necessary; 
ty  of  all  Substances  be  hence  an  eternal  cause  must  necessarily  be. 
Refuted  by  Reason?  g^^  ^j^^^  \v\yiz\\  Can  possibly  be  thought  as  ex- 
isting and  yet  not  necessary,  cannot  be  eternal.  Such  is  his  logic. 
I  think  inspection  will  show  you  a  double  defect.  The  first 
enthymeme,  as  we  saw(p.  8)  is  not  conclusive  ;  and  the  second, 
even  if  the  first  were  true,  would  be  only  inferring  the  converse  ; 
which  is  not  necessarily  conclusive. 

Howe  states  a  more  plausible  argument,  at  wh'ch  Dr.  Clarke 
also  glances.  Were  matter  eternal,  it  must  needs  be  necessary. 
But  then  it  must  be  ubiquitous,  homogeneous,  immutable,  like 
God's  substance  ;  because  this  inward  eternal  necessity  of  being 
cannot  but  act  always  and  everywhere  alike.  Whereas,  we  see 
matter  diverse,  changing  and  only  in  parts  of  space.  I  doubt 
whether  this  is  solid ;  or  whether  from  the  mere  postulate  of  nec- 
essary existence,  we  can  infer  anything  more  than  Spinoza  does  : 
that  eternal  matter  can  possibly  exist  in  no  other  organisms  and 
sequences  of  change,  than  those  in  which  it  actually  exists.  Our 
surest  refutation  of  this  feature  of  Platonism  is  God's  word.  This 
heathen  theology  is  certainly  nearest  of  any  to  the  Christian,  here, 
and  less  repugnant  than  any  other  to  the  human  reason  and 
God's  honor. 

Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  (vol.  I,  p.  56.  &c,)  constructs  what  he 
Dr.  Breckinridge.  assures  US  is  an  argument  of  his  own,  for  the 
being  of  a  God.  A  brief  inspection  of  it  will 
illustrate  the  subject,  i.  Because  something  now  is  —  at  least 
the  mind  that  reasons — therefore  something  eternal  is.  2.  All 
known  substance  is  matter  or  spirit.  3.  Hence  only  three  possi- 
ble alternatives ;  either,  (a.)  some  matter  is  eternal ;  and  the 
source  of  all  spirit  and  all  other  matter.  Or,  (b.)  some  being 
composed  of  matter  and  spirit  is  the  eternal  one,  and  the  source 
of  all  other  matter  and  spirit.  Or,  (c.)  some  spirit  is  eternal,  and 
produced  all  other  spirit  and  matter.  The  third  hypothesis 
.must  be  the  true  one  :  not  the   second    because   we   are  matter 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  1 3 

and  spirit  combined,  and,  consciously,  cannot  create  ;  and  more- 
over tlie  first  Cause  must  be  single.  Not  the  first,  because  mat- 
ter is  inferior  to  mind ;  and  the  inferior  does  not  produce  the 
superior. 

The  objections  to  this  structure  begin  at  the  second  part, 
where  the  author  leaves  the  established  forms 
of  Howe  and  Clarke.     First :  the  argument 
cannot  apply,  in  the  Tnind  of  a  pure  idealist,  or  of  a  materialist. 
Second  :    it  is  not  rigidly  demonstrated  that  there  can  be   no 
substance  but  matter  and  spirit;  all  that  can  be  done  is  to  say, 
negatively,   that   no   other  is   known   to   us      Third :  the   three 
alternative  propositions  do  not  exhaust  the  case ;  the  Pantheist 
and  the  Peripatetic,  of  eternal  organization,  show  us  that  others 
are  conceivable,  as  obviously  does  the  Platonic.     Fourth  :  that 
we,  combined  of  matter  and  spirit,  consciously  cannot  create,  is 
short  of  proof  that  some  higher  being,  thus  constituted,  cannot. 
Christ  could  create,  if  He  pleased ;  He  is  thus  constituted.     Last : 
it  is  unfortunate  that  an  argument,  which  aims  to  be  so  experi- 
mental, should  have  the  analogy  of  our  natural  experience  so 
much  against  it.     For  we  only  witness  human  spirits  producing 
effects,  when  incorporate.     As  soon  as  they  are  disembodied, 
(at  death,)  they  totally  cease  to  be  observed  causes  of  any  effects. 
The  teleological  argument  for  the  being  and  attributes  of  a 
God  has  been  so  well  stated  by  Paley,  in  his 
Teleological    Argu-    Natural  Theology,  that  though  as  old  as  Job 
and  Socrates,  it  is  usually  mentioned  as  Paley's 
argument.     I    refer  you   especially  to   his  first  three  chapters. 
Beginning  from  the  instance  of  a  peasant  finding  a  watch  on  a 
common,  and  although  not  knowing  how  it  came  there,  conclud- 
ing that  some  intelligent  agent  constructed  it ;  he  applies  the 
same  argument,  with  great  beauty  and  power,  to  show  that  man 
and  the  universe  have  a  Maker.     For  we  see  everywhere  intelli- 
gent arrangement ;   as   the  eye  for  seeing,  the  ear  for  hearing, 
&c.,   &c.     Nor   is    the    peasant's    reasoning   to    a    watchmaker 
weakened,  because  he  never  sav/  one  at  work,  or  even  heard  of 
one  ;  nor  because  a  part  of  the  structure  is  not  understood  ;  nor 
because  some  of  the  adjustments  are  seen  to  be  imperfect;   nor, 
if  you   showed  the  peasant,    in  the  watch,  a  set  of  wheels  for 
reproducing  its  kind,  would  he  be  satisfied  that  there  was  no 
watchmaker :  for  he  would  see  that  this  reproductive  mechanism 
could  not  produce  the  intelligent  arrangements.     Nor  would  he 
be  satisfied  with  a  "law  of  nature,"  or  a  "physical  principle  of 
order,"  as  the  sole  cause. 

It  is  a  fact,  somewhat  curious,  that  the  metaphysical  and  the 

teleological  arguments  have  each  had  their  ex- 

Are  the  two,    rival    elusive  advocates  in  modern  times.     The  ap- 

lines  of  proof?  r  -n    i  •    •       -n.      -ru  tj  • 

plauders  oi  raley  jom  Dr.  ihomas  brown  in 
scouting  the  former  as  shadowy  and  inconclusive.  The  supporters 
of  the  metaphysical  divines  depreciate  Paley,  as  leading  us  to  noth- 


14  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ing  above  a  mere  Dciniurgus.  In  truth,  both  hnes  of  reasoning 
are  vahd  ;  and  each  needs  the  other.  Dr.  Brown,  for  instance,  in 
carrying  Paley's  argument  to  its  higher  conclusions,  must  tacitly 
borrow  some  of  the  very  metaphysics  which  he  professes  to  dis- 
dain. Otherwise  it  remains  incomplete,and  leads  to  no  more  than  a 
sort  oiArtifex  Mtmdi,  whose  existence  runs  back  merely  to  a  date 
prior  to  human  experience,  and  whose  being, power  and  wisdom 
are  demonstrated  to  extend  only  as  far  as  man's  inquiries  have 
gone.  But  that  He  is  eternal,immutable,  independent,  immense, 
infinite  in  power  or  wisdom ;  it  can  never  assure  us.  True,  in- 
viewing  the  argument,  your  mind  did  leap  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  artificer  of  nature's  contrivances  is  the  Being  of  "  eternal 
power  and  godhead,"  but  it  was  only  because  you  passed, almost 
unconsciously,  perhaps,  through  that  metaphysical  deduction,  of 
which  Howe  gives  us  the  exact  description.  Howe's  is  the  com- 
prehensive, Paley's  the  partial  (but  very  lucid)  display  of  the  a 
posteriori  argument.  Paley's  premise  ;  that  every  contrivance 
must  have  an  intelligent  contriver,  is  but  an  instance  under  the 
more  general  one,  that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause.  The  in- 
adequacy of  Paley's  argument  may  be  illustrated  in  this :  that 
he  seems  to  think  the  peasant's  discovery  of  a  stone,  instead  of  a 
watch,  could  not  have  led  his  mind  to  the  same  conclusion, 
whereas  a  pebble  as  really,  though  not  so  impressively,  suggests 
a  cause,  as  an  organized  thing.  For  even  the  pebble  should  make 
us  think  either  that  it  is  such  as  can  have  the  ground  of  its  ex- 
istence in  its  present  form  in  itself;  and  so,  can  be  eternal,  self- 
existent,  and  necessary ;  or  else,  that  it  had  a  Producer,  who  does 
possess  these  attributes. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  argument  from  contrivance  has 
Its  value  great  value,  for  these  reasons.     It  is  plain  and 

popular.  It  enables  us  to  evince  the  unity 
of  the  first  cause  through  the  unity  of  purpose  and  convergence 
of  the  consequences  of  creation.  It  aids  us  in  showing  the  per- 
sonality of  God,  as  a  being  of  intelligence  and  will ;  and  it  greatly 
strengthens  the  assault  we  shall  be  enabled  to  make  on  Panthe- 
ism, by  showing,  unless  there  is  a  personal  and  divine  first  Cause 
prior  to  the  univ^erse,  this  must  itself  be,  not  only  uncaused, 
eternal,  independent,  necessarily  existent,  but  endued  with 
intelligence. 


LECTURE  II. 

EXISTENCE  OF  GOD.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Show  in  a  few  instances  how  the  Argument  from  Design  is  drawn  from  Ani- 
mal Organisms,  from  Man's  Mental  and  Emotional  Structure,  and  from  the  Adaptation 
of  Matter  to  our  Mental  Faculties. 

See  Paley,  Nat.  Theol.  bk.  iv,  ch.  iii,  i6.  Chalmers'  Nat.  Theol.  bk.  iv,  ch. 
i,  2-5 

2.  Can  the  being  of  God  be  argued  from  the  existence  of  Conscience  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  i,  ^14  15.     Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.  part  i,  ch  ii,  ^5.     Alex- 
ander's Moral  Science,  ch.  xii.    Chalmers'  Nat.  Thegl.  bk.  iii,  ch.  2.  Charnock 
Attributes,  Discourse  i,  §3.     Kant,  Critique  of  the  Practical  Reason.     Thorn- 
well,  Lect.  ii. 

3.  What  the  value  of  the  Argument  from  the  Consensus  Populorum'^. 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  i,  gi6-i8.     Dick,  Lect.  xvii.     Cicero  de  Nat.  Deo7-uni, 
lib.  i.     Charnock,  Discourse  i,  §1 

4.  Refute  the  evasion  of  Hume :  That  the  Universe  is  a  Singular  Effect. 
Alexander's    Moral   Science,  ch.  xxviii.     Chalmer's   Nat.  Theol.  bk.  i,  ch.  4. 
Watson's  Theo.  Institutes,  pt  ii,  cli.  i.  Hodge,  pt.  i,  ch.  ii.  §4.     Reign  of  Law, 
Duke   of  Argyle,  ch.  iii. 

5.  Can  the  Universe  be  accounted  for  without  a  Creator,  as  an  infinite  series  of 
Temporal  Effects  ? 

Alexander's  Moral  Science,  ch.  xxviii.  Turrettin,  as  above,  §6-7.  Dr. 
S.  Clarke's  Discourse  \2.     Kant,  Critique  of  Pure  Reason,  1st  Antinomy. 

6.  Refute  the  Pantheistic  Scheme  of  the  Universe. 

Thornwell,  Lect.  ix.  Alex.  Moral  Science,  ch.  xxviii.  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  Dis- 
course, &c.  \  3,  7,  9,  &c.  Chalmers'  Nat.  Theol.,  bk.  i,  ch,  v.  Hodge,  pt.  i, 
ch.  iii  \  5,  Thornwell,  "Personality  of  God,"  in  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  490. 

'  I  ^O  resume:     A  single  instance    of   intelligent    contrivance 
■*■       in  the  works  of  creation  would  prove  an  intelligent  Cre- 
ator.    Yet,  it  is  Avell  to  multiply  these  proofs, 
ir^l^XT:tt^'    even  largely:  for  they  give  us  then  a  wider 
foundation    of  deduction,   stronger  views  of 
the  extent  of  the  creative  wisdom  and  power;  and  better  evi- 
dence of  God's  unity. 

Hence,  as  instances,  showing  how  the  argument  is  con- 
structed :  If  the  design  is  to  produce  the 
imS"'°''^^"'°^^'"  physical  part  of  the  sensation  of  vision  ;  the 
eye  is  obviously  an  optical  instrument,  con- 
trived with  lenses  to  refract,  expedients  for  obtaining  an 
achromatic  spectrum,  adjustments  for  distance  and  quantity 
of  light,  and  protection  of  the  eye,  by  situation,  bony  socket, 
brow,  lids,  lubricating  fluids;  and  in  birds,  the  nictitating 
membrane.  Different  creatures  also  have  eyes  adapted  to 
their  lives  and  media  of  vision ;  as  birds,  cats,  owls,  fishes. 
So,  the  ear  is  an  auditory  apparatus,  with  a  concha  to  con- 
verge the  sound-waves,  a  tube,  a  tympanum  to  transmit  vi- 
bration, the  three  bones  [malleus,  stipes  and  mens)  in  instable 
equilibrium,  to  convey  it  to  the  sensorutvi,  &c. 

The  world    of  spirit  is  just   as  full  of  evident  contrivan- 
ces.    See  (e.  g.)  the    laws  of  habit  and  im- 
tur^jMan"*''^^^^'''''    ^^^^^0"'    exactly  adjusted  to  educate  and  to 
form    the    character ;    and    the    faculties    of 

IS 


1 6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

memory,  association,  taste,  &c.  The  evidences  of  contrivance 
are,  if  possible,  still  more  beautiful  in  our  emotional  structure  ^ 
e.  g.  in  the  instincts  of  parental  love,  sympathy,  resentment  and 
its  natural  limits,  sexual  love,  and  its  natural  check,  modesty ;. 
and  above  all,  conscience,  with  its  self-approval  and  remorse. 
All  these  are  adjusted  to  obvious  ends. 

We    see    marks  of  more  recondite  design,  in  the  natural 

compensation    for    necessary    defects.      The 

In    Compensating    elephant's  short  neck  is  made  up  by  a  lithe 

Arrangements.  \  .  -i->-     i   >  i  ir      j 

proboscis.  Birds  heads  cannot  carry  teeth  : 
but  they  have  a  gizzard.  Insects  with  fixed  heads,  have  a  num- 
ber of  eyes  to  see  around  them.  Brutes  have  less  reason,  but 
more  instinct ;  &c.,  &c. 

The    adaptations  of  one  department  of  nature   to   another 

show  at  once  contrivance,  selecting  will  and 
In  Adaptations.  unity   of  mind.     Thus,    the   media   and  the 

organs  of  sense  are  made  for  each  other^ 
The  forms  and  colours  of  natural  objects  are  so  related  to 
taste ;  the  degree  of  fertility  imparted  to  the  earth,  to  man's 
necessity  for  labour;  the  stability  of  physical  law,  to  the 
necessary  judgments  of  the  reason  thereabout.  So  all  na- 
ture, material  and  spiritual,  animal,  vegetable,  inorganic,  on 
our  planet,  in  the  starry  skies,  are  full  of  wise  contrivance. 

The  moral    phenomena    of  conscience   present  a   twofold 

evidence  for  the  being  of  a  God,  worthy 
scitnfe'!"''"'^''°'''^°"'    of  fuller  illustration  than  space  allows.     This 

faculty  is  a  most  ingenious  spiritual  con- 
trivance, adjusted  to  a  beneficent  end :  viz.,  the  promotion 
of  virtuous  acts,  and  repression  of  wicked.  As  such,  it 
proves  a  contriver,  just  as  any  organic  adjustment  does. 
But  second :  we  shall  find,  later  in  the  course,  that  our 
moral  judgments  are  intuitive,  primitive,  and  necessary;  the 
most  inevitable  functions  of  the  reason.  Now,  the  idea  of 
our  acts  which  have  rightness,  is  unavoidably  attended 
with  the  judgment  that  they  are  obligatory.  Obligation  must 
imply  an  obliger.  This  is  not  always  any  known  creature  : 
hence,  the  Creator.  Again,  our  conscience  of  wrong-doing 
unavoidably  suggests  fear ;  but  fear  implies  an  avenger.  The 
secret  sinner,  the  imperial  sinner  above  all  creature-power,  shares 
this  dread.  Now,  one  may  object,  that  this  process  is  not  valid, 
unless  we  hold  God's  mere  will  the  sole  source  of  moral  distinc- 
tions :  which  we  do  not  teach,  since  an  atheist  is  reasonably 
compelled  to  hold  them.  But  the  objection  is  not  just.  The 
primitive  law  of  the  reason  must  be  accepted  as  valid  to  us, 
whatever  its  source.  For  parallel :  The  intuitive  belief  in  causa- 
tion is  found  on  inspection,  to  contain  the  proposition,  'There  is 
a  first  Cause.'  But  in  order  for  the  validity  of  this  proposition, 
it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  say  that  this  intuition  is  God's 
arbitrary  implantation.     It  is  intrinsically  true  to  the  nature  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1/ 

things  ;  and  the  argument  to  a  first  Cause  therefore  only  the  more 
vaHd. 

This  moral  argument  to  the  being  of  a  God,  as  it  is  imme- 
diate and  strictly  logical,  is  doubtless  far  the  most  practical.  Its 
force  is  seen  in  this,  that  theoretical  atheists,  in  danger  and  death, 
usually  at  the  awakening  of  remorse,  acknowledge  God. 

You  find  the  argument  from  the  Consensus  Populorum, 
much  elaborated  by  your  authorities.  I  con- 
UnivelsH'consen^™  ^lude  that  it  gives  a  strong  probable  evidence 
for  the  being  of  a  God,  thus  :  The  truth  is 
abstract;  its  behef  would  not  have  been  so  nearly  universal,  nor 
so  obviously  essential  to  man's  social  existence,  did  not  a  valid 
ground  for  it  exist  in  man's  laws  of  thought.  For  it  can  be  ac- 
counted for  neither  by  fear,  policy,  nor  self-interest. 

From  the  afifirmative  argument,  we  return  to  evasions. 
4.  Objected,  that  -^^^  objection  is  urged,  that  the  argument 
Contrivance  betrays  from  design,  if  valid,  proves  only  a  crea- 
Lunitation.  ^qj.    ^f  liniited    powers.     For    contrivance  is 

the  expedient  of  weakness.  E.  g.  one  constructs  a  derrick, 
because  he  is  too  weak  to  lift  the  mass  as  a  Samson.  If  the 
Creator  has  eternal  power  and  godhead,  why  did  He  not  go 
straight  to  His  ends,  without  means,  as  in  Ps.  33  :  9?  I  answer, 
design  proves  a  designer,  though  in  part  unintelligible.  2nd. 
It  w^ould  not  be  unworthy  of  the  Almighty  to  choose  this  man- 
ner of  working,  in  order  to  leave  His  signature  on  it  for  man  to 
read.  3d.  Chiefly  :  Had  God  employed  no  means  to  ends,  he 
must  have  remained  the  only  agent ;  there  would  have  been  no 
organized  nature ;  but  only  the  one  supernatural  agent. 

Hume  strives  to  undermine  the  argument  from  the  creation 
Hume  Objects  that  ^^  a  Creator,  by  urging  that,  since  only  expe- 
the  World  is  a  Singular  rience  teaclies  us  the  uniformity  of  the  tie 
'^^^^^-  between  effect  and  cause,  it  is  unwarranted 

to  apply  it  farther  than  experience  goes  with  us.  But  no  one 
has  had  any  experience  of  a  Vv^orld-maker,  as  we  have  of  making 
implements  in  the  arts.  The  universe,  if  an  effect  at  all,  is  one 
wholly  singular :  the  only  one  anybody  has  known,  and  from  the 
earliest  human  experience,  substantially  as  it  is  now.  Hence 
the  empirical  induction  to  its  first  Cause  is  unauthorized. 

Note  first :  this  is  from  the  same  mint  with  his  argument 
against  miracles.  Creation  is  simply  the  first 
Dr.  Alexander's  An-    miracle ;  the  same  objection  is  in  substance 


svver 


brought;  viz:  no  testimony  can  be  weighty 
enough  to  prove,  against  universal  experience,  that  a  miracle  has 
occured.  Next,  Dr.  Alexander,  to  rebut,  resorts  to  an  illustra- 
tion ;  a  country  boy  who  had  seen  only  ploughs  and  horse-carts, 
is  shown  a  steam-frigate  ;  yet  he  immediately  infers  a  mechan- 
ic for  it.  The  fact  will  be  so;  but  it  will  not  give  us  the 
whole  analysis.  True,  the  frigate  is  greatly  larger  and  more 
complicated   than  a  horse  cart;  (as   the  universe    is  than  any 

*2 


1 8  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

human  machine).  But  still,  Hume  might  urge  that  the  boy 
would  see  a  thousand  empirical  marks,  cognizable  to  his  ex- 
periences, (timber  with  marks  of  the  plane  on  it,  as  on  his 
plough-beam,  the  cable  as  evidently  twisted  of  hemp,  as 
his  plough-lines ;  the  huge  anchor  with  as  evident  dints  of 
the  hammer,  as  his  plough-share,)  which  taught  him  that  the 
wonderful  ship  was  also  a  produced  mechanism.  Astonish- 
ing as  it  is  to  him,  compared  with  the  plough,  it  is  experiment- 
ally seen  to  be  not  natural,  like  the  universe, 

Chalmers,  in  a  chapter  full  of  contradictions,  seems  to 
grant  that  experience  alone  teaches  us  the 
mers  nswer.  ^^^^^  ^^  causation,  and  asserts  that  still  the 
universe  is  not  "a  singular  effect."  To  show  this,  he  sup- 
poses, with  Paley,  the  peasant  from  a  watch  inferring  a 
watch-maker :  and  then  by  a  series  of  abstractions,  he  shows 
that  the  logical  basis  of  the  inference  is  not  anything  pe- 
culiar to  that  watch,  as  that  it  is  a  gold,  or  a  silver,  a 
large,  a  small,  or  a  good  watch,  or  a  machine  to  measure 
time  at  all ;  but  simply  the  fact  that  it  is  a  manifest  contrivance 
for  an  end.  The  effect  then,  is  no  longer  singular ;  yet  the  infer- 
ence to  some  adequate  agent  holds.  To  this  ingenious  process, 
Hume  would  object  that  it  is  experience  alone  which  guides  in 
making  those  successive  abstractions,  by  which  we  separate  the 
accidental  from  the  essential  effect  and  cause.  This,  Chalmers 
himself  admits.  Hence,  as  we  have  no  experience  of  world-mak- 
ing, no  such  abstraction  is  here  allowable,  to  reduce  the  world 
to  the  class  of  common  effects.  Besides ;  has  Hume  admitted 
that  it  is  an  effect  at  all  ?  In  fine,  he  might  urge  this  difference, 
that  the  world  is  native,  while  the  watch,  the  plough,  the  ship 
bears,  to  the  most  unsophisticated  observer,  empirical  marks  of 
being  made,  and  not  native. 

Let  us  not  then  refute  Hume  from  his  own  premises ; 
for  they  are  false.  It  is  not  experience 
which  teaches  us  that  every  effect  has  its 
cause,  but  the  a  priori  reason.  (This  Chal- 
mers first  asserts,  and  then  unwisely  surrenders.)  Neither 
child  nor  man  believes  that  maxim  to  be  true  in  the  hundredth 
case,  because  he  has  experienced  its  truth  in  ninty-nine ;  he 
instinctively  believed  it  in  the  first  case.  It  is  not  a  true  canon 
of  inductive  logic,  that  the  tie  ot  cause  and  effect  can  be  asserted 
only  so  far  as  experience  proves  its  presence.  If  it  were,  would 
induction  ever  teach  us  anything  we  did  not  know  before  ?  Would 
there  be  any  inductive  science  ?  Away  with  the  nonsense  !  Grant 
that  the  world  is  a  "singular  effect."  It  is  a  phenomenon,  it 
<vOuld  not  be  without  a  cause  of  its  being,  either  extrinsic,  or  in- 
trinsic. And  this  we  know,  not  by  experience,  but  by  one  of 
those  primitive  judgments  of  the  reason,  which  alone  make 
experience  intelligible  and  \alid. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  I9 

But  may  not  this  universe  have  the  ground  of  its  being  in 
Can  the  Present  Uni-    i^^elf?     This  is  another  evasion  of  the  athe- 
verse  be  the  result  of   ists.     Grant,    they  Say,   that  nothing  cannot 
an  Infinite  Series   of   produce  Something.     Theists  sfo  outside  the 
"  ■  universe  to  seek  its  cause ;  and  when  they  sup- 

pose they  have  found  it  in  a  God,  they  are  unavoidably  driven  to 
represent  Him  as  uncaused  from  without,eternal,  self-existent,and 
necessary.  Now  it  is^  simpler  hpyothesis,  just  to  suppose  that 
the  universe  which  we  see,  is  the  uncaused,  eternal,  self-existent, 
necessary  Being.  Why  may  we  not  adopt  it?  Seeing  we  must 
run  back  to  the  mystery  of  some  uncaused,  eternal  being,  whv 
may  we  not  accept  the  obvious  teaching  of  nature  and  experience 
and  conclude  that  this  is  it  ?  Since  the  organisms  which  adorn 
this  universe  are  all  temporal,  and  since  the  earth  and  other  stars 
move  in  temporal  cycles,  we  shall  then  have  to  suppose  that  the 
infinite  past  eternity,  through  which  this  self-existent  universe  has 
existed,  was  made  up  of  an  infinite  succession  of  these  organisms 
and  cycles,  each  previous  one  producing  the  next :  as  the  infi- 
nite future  eternity  which  will  be.  But  what  is  absurd  in  such 
a  hypothesis  ? 

Now  I  will  not  repl}^  with  Dr.  Clarke  and  others,  that  if  the 
universe  is  eternal,  it  must  be  necessar\' ;  and 
sw^s.^'^^'^'^'''''''  ^"'  this  necessity  must  make  its  substance  homo- 
geneous and  unchangeable  throughout  infinite 
time  and  space.  It  might  be  plausibly  retorted,  that  this  ten- 
dency to  regular,  finite  organisms,  which  we  see,  was  the  v^cy 
necessity  of  nature  inherent  in  matter.  Nor  does  it  seem 
to  me  solid  to  say,  with  Robert  Hall  in  his  sermon,  Tur- 
rettin,  and  others,  that  an  eternal  series  of  finite  durations 
is  impossible ;  because  if  each  particular  part  had  a  begin- 
ning, while  the  series  had  none,  we  should  have  the  series 
existing  before  its  first  member ;  the  chain  stretching  far- 
ther back  'than  its  farthest  link.  The  very  supposition  was, 
that  the  series  had  no  first  member.  Is  a  past  eternity  any 
more  impossible  to  be  made  up  of  the  addition  of  an  in- 
finite number  of  finite  parts,  than  an  abstract  infinite  future? 
Surely  not.  Now  there  is  to  be  just  such  an  infinite  future  : 
namely,  your  and  my  immortality,  which,  although  it  may  not 
be  measured  by  solar  days  and  years,  will  undoubtedly  be 
composed  of  parts  of  successive  time  infinitely  multiplied.  But 
to  this  future  eternity,  it  would  be  exactly  parallel  to  object,  that 
we  make  each  link  in  it  have  an  end,  while  the  whole  is  endless  ; 
which  would  involve  the  same  absurdity,  of  a  chain  extended 
forward  after  the  last  link  was  ended.  The  answer  again  is  : 
that  according  to  the  supposition,  there  is  no  last  link,  the  num- 
ber thereof  being  infinite.  In  a  word,  what  mathematician  does 
not  know  that  infinitude  may  be  generated  by  the  addition  of 
finites  repeated  an  infinite  number  of  times  ? 


20  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Turrettin,    among   many    ingenious    argumenls,    advances 
Tunetiin's  Argu-    another  which  seems  more  respectable.     It  is 
ment  from  Unequal  In-    in  substance   this:     If  this   universe   has   no 
fi"'''^s.  Creator,  then  its  past  duration  must  be  a  proper 

and  absolute  infinity.  But  created  things  move  or  succeed  each 
other  in  finite  times.  See,  for  instance,  the  heavenly  bodies : 
The  sun  revolves  on  its  axis  daily ;  around  its  orbit,  annually. 
If  this  state  of  things  has  been  eternal,  there  must  have  been 
an  infinite  number  of  days,  and  also  an  infinite  number  of  years. 
But  since  it  requires  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days  to  a  year, 
we  have  here  two  temporal  infinities,  both  proper  and  absolute, 
yet  one  three  hundred  and  sixty-five  times  as  large  as  the  other ! 
Now,  the  mathematicians  tell  us,  that  proper  infinities  may  be 
unequal ;  that  an  infinite  plane,  for  instance,  may  be  conceived 
as  constituted  of  infinite  straight  lines  infinitely  numerous  ;  and  an 
infinite  solid,  of  an  infinite  number  of  such  planes,  superposed 
the  one  on  the  other.  But  it  is  at  least  questionable,  whether 
the  evasion  is  valid  against  Turrettin's  argument.  For  these 
differing  infinities  are  in  different  dimensions,  of  length,  breadth 
and  thickness.  Can  there  be,  in  the  same  dimension,  two  lines, 
each  infinite  in  length,  and  yet  the  one  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
five  as  great  as  the  other,  in  length  ? 

Turrettin  attempts  to  reply  to  the  answer  drawn  from  the 
eternity  a  parte  post,  against  the  metaphysical  argument.  The 
atheist  asks  us  :  Since  (as  theists  say)  a  finite  soul  is  to  be 
immortal,  there  will  be  a  specimen  of  a  temporal  infinity  formed 
of  finite  times  infinitely  repeated  :  Why  may  there  not  have 
been  a  similar  infinite  duration  a  parte  ante?  Because,  says  our 
Text-book :  That  which  was,  but  is  past,  cannot  be  fairlv  com- 
pared with  a  future  which  will  never  be  past.  Again  :  a  thing 
destined  never  to  end  may  have  a  beginning;  but  it  is  impossible 
to  believe  that  a  thing  which  actually  has  ended,  never  had  a  be- 
ginning. Because,  the  fact  that  the  thing  came  to  an  end  proves 
that  its  cause  was  outside  of  itself  The  last  remark  introduces 
us  to  a  solid  argument,  and  it  is  solid,  because  it  brings  us  out 
of  the  shadowy  region  of  infinity  to  the  solid  ground  of  causa- 
tion. It  is  but  another  way  of  stating  the  grand,  the  unan- 
swerable refutation  of  this  atheistic  theory :  a  series  composed 
only  of  contingent  parts  must  be,  as  a  whole,  contingent.  But 
the  contingent  cannot  be  eternal,  because  it  is  not  self-existent. 
This  argument  is  explicated  in  the  following  points  : 

(i.)  Take  any  line  of  generative  organisms,  for  instance: 
(oak  trees  bearing  acorns,  and  those  acorns  rearing  oaks,  e.  g.) 
the  being  of  each  individual  in  the  series  demands  an  adequate 
cause.  When  we  push  the  inquiry  back  one  step,  and  ask  the 
cause  of  the  parent  which  (seemingly)  caused  it,  we  find 
precisely  the  same  difficulty  unanswered.  Whatever  distance 
wc  run  back  along  the  line,  we  clearly  see  no  approach  is  made 
towards    finding   the  adequate   cause   of  the  series,   or   of  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  21 

earliest  individual  considered.  Hence  it  is  wholly  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  introduction  of  infinitude  into  the  series 
helps  to  give  us  an  adequate  cause.  We  only  impose  on  our- 
selves with  an  undefined  idea.  Paley's  illustration  here  is  as 
just  as  beautiful.  Two  straight  parallel  lines  pursued,  ever  so 
far,  make  no  approximation ;  they  will  never  meet,  though  infi- 
nitely extended. 

(2.)  An  adequate  cause  existing  at  the  time  the  phenomenon 
arises,  must  be  assigifed  for  every  effect.  For  a  cause  not 
present  at  the  rise  of  the  effect,  is  no  cause.  Now  then ;  when 
a  given  oak  was  sprouted,  all  the  previous  oaks  and  acorns  of  its 
line,  save  one  or  two,  had  perished.  Was  this  acorn,  even  with 
its  parent  oak,  the  adequate  cause  of  the  whole  structure  of  the 
young  tree,  including  the  ingenious  contrivances  thereof  ?  Surely 
not.  But  the  previous  dead  oaks  and  acorns  are  no  cause  ;  for 
they  are  not  there.  An  absent  cause  is  no  cause.  The  origi- 
nal cause  of  this  oak  is  not  in  the  series  at  all. 

(3.)  Even  if  we  permit  ourselves  to  be  dazzled  with  the 
notion  that  somehow  the  infinitude  of  the  series  can  account  for 
its  self-productive  power ;  this  maxim  is  obvious :  that  in  a 
series  of  transmitted  causes,  the  whole  power  of  the  cause  must 
be  successively  in  each  member  of  the  series.  For  each  one 
could  only  transmit  what  power  it  received  from  its  immediate 
predecessor;  and  if  at  any  stage,  any  portion  of  the  causative 
power  were  lost,  all  subsequent  stages  must  be  without  it. 
But  evidently  no  one  generation  of  acorns  ever  had  power  or 
intelligence  to  create  the  subtle  contrivances  of  vegetable  life 
in  their  progeny ;  and  to  suppose  that  all  did,  is  but  multiplying 
the  absurdity. 

(4)  This  question  .should  be  treated  according  to  the 
atheist's  point  of  view,  scientifically:  Science  always  accepts 
testimony  in  preference  to  hypothesis.  Now  there  is  a  testi- 
mony, that  of  the  Mosaic  Scripture,  as  supported  by  universal 
tradition,  which  says  that  all  series  of  organisms  began  in  the 
creative  act  of  an  intelligent  first  Cause.  The  atheist  may 
object,  that  men,  as  creatures  themselves,  have  no  right  of  their 
own  knowledge,  to  utter  such  traditionary  testimony  ;  for  they 
could  not  be  present  before  the  organisms  existed  to  witness 
how  they  were  brought  into  existence.  The  only  pretext  for 
such  tradition  would  be  that  some  prior  superhuman  Being,  who 
did  witness  man's  production,  revealed  to  him  how  he  was 
produced  :  but  whether  any  such  prior  Being  existed,  is  the 
very  thing  in  debate,  and  so  may  not  be  taken  for  granted. 

True ;  but  the  existence  of  the  testimony  must  be  granted  ; 
for  it  is  a  fact  that  it  exists,  and  it  must  be  accounted  for.  And 
the  question  is,  whether  the  only  good  account  is  not,  that  the 
universe  did  have  an  intelligent  Cause,  and  that  this  Cause  taught 
primeval  man  whence  he  originated.  Otherwise,  not  only  is  the 
universe  left  unaccounted  for,  but  the  universal  tradition. 


22  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

(5)  Science  exalts  experience  above  hypothesis  even  more 
than  testimony.  Now,  the  whole  state  of  the  world  bears  the 
appearance  of  recency.  The  recent  discovery  of  new  conti- 
nents, the  great  progress  of  new  arts  since  the  historic  era  began, 
and  the  partial  population  of  the  earth  by  man,  all  belie  the 
eternity  of  the  human  race.  But  stronger  still,  geology  proves 
the  creation,  in  time,  of  race  after  race  of  animals,  and  the 
comparatively  recent  origin  of  man,  by  her  fossil  records.  These 
show  the  absolute  beginning  of  genera.  And  the  attempt  to 
account  for  them  by  the  development  theory  (Chambers  or 
Darwin)  is  utterly  repudiated  by  even  the  better  irreligious  phil- 
osophers ;  for  if  there  is  anything  that  Natural  History  has 
established,  it  is  that  organic  life  is  -separated  from  inorganic 
forces,  mechanical,  chemical,  electrical  or  other,  by  inexorable 
bounds  ;  and  'CcvsJi  genera  may  begin  or  end,  but  never  transmute 
themselves  into  other  geiiera. 

As  I  pointed  out,  there  are  but    two  hypotheses  by  which 

„     ,   .  the  demonstration  of  an  eternal,  intelligent, 

Pantheism.  ^  r     ,   r^  1  1    j        t-i 

personal  first  Cause  can  be  evaded.      Ine  one 

has  just  been  discussed;  the  other  is  the  pantheistic.  No  sepa- 
rate first  Cause  of  the  universe  need  be  assigned,  it  says,  because 
the  universe  is  God.  The  first  Cause  and  the  whole  creation 
are  supposed  to  be  one  substance,  world-god,  possessing  all  the 
attributes  of  both.  As  extremes  often  meet,  pantheism  leads 
to  the  same  practical  results  with  atheism.  Aristotle,  perhaps 
the  most  sagacious  of  pagan  thinkers,  was  willing  to  postulate 
the  eternity,  a  parte  ante,  of  the  series  of  organisms.  But  he, 
none  the  less,  taught  the  existence  of  a  God  who,  though  in  a 
sense  an  Aninta  Mundi,  was  yet  an  intelligent  and  active  infinite 
Cause.     Hence : 

The  ancient  form  of  pantheism,  probably  peripatetic  in  its 
source,  admitted  that  matter,  dead,  senseless, 
_Jenpatetic  Panthe-  divisible,  cannot  be  the  proper  seat  of  intelli- 
gence and  choice,  which  are  indivisible  ;  and 
that  the  universe  is  full  of  marks  of  intelligent  design,  so  that 
an  Anima  Miindi,  an  intelligent  Principle,  must  be  admitted  in 
the  universe.  Yes,  I  reply,  it  must,  and  that  personal.  Because 
it  obviously  has  intelligence,  choice,  and  will ;  and  how  can  per- 
sonality be  better  defined  ?  Nor  can  it  inhabit  the  universe  as 
a  soul  its  body,  not  being  limited  to  it  in  time  or  space,  nor  bearing 
that  relation  to  it.  Not  in  time ;  because,  beins;-  eternal,  it  existed 
a  whole  past  eternity  before  it ;  for  we  have  proved  the  latter  tem- 
poral. Not  in  space  ;  for  we  have  seen  this  Intelligence  eternal 
ages  not  holding  its  nbi  in  space  by  means  of  body  ;  and  tiiere  is 
not  a  single  reason  for  supposing  that  it  is  now  limited  to  the 
part  of  space  which  bodies  occupy.  It  is  not  connected  with 
matter  by  any  tie  of  animality;  because  immensely  the  larger 
part  of  matter  is  inanimate. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  23 

Modern  pantheism  appears  either  in  the  hypothesis  of  Spi- 
noza, the  Jew,  or  in  that  of  the  later  German 
^^PantheismofSpmo-  j^eahsts.  Both  see  that  even  the  material 
universe  teems  with  intelligent  contrivances : 
and  more,  that  the  nobler  part,  that  known  by  consciousness, 
and  so,  ipost  immediately  known,  is  a  world  of  thought  and 
feeling  in  human  breasts.  Hence  intelligence  and  will  must  be 
accounted  for,  as  well  as  matter.  Now,  Spinoza's  first  position 
is :  There  can  be  no  real  substance,  except  it  be  self-existent, 
and  so,  eternal.  That  is :  it  is  incredible  that  any  true  sub- 
stance can  pass  from  JiiJiil  into  esse.  2d.  All  the  self-existent 
must  be  one ;  this  is  unavoidable  from  the  unity  of  its  charac- 
teristic attribute.  3d.  The  one  real  substance  must  therefore 
be  eternal,  infinite,  and  necessarily  existent.  Hence,  4th.  all 
other  seeming  beings  are  not  real  substance,  but  modes  of  exis- 
tence of  this  sole  being.  .  5th.  All  possible  attributes, 
however  seemingly  diverse,  must  be  modes,  nearer  or  remote,  of 
this  Being ;  and  it  is  necessary  therefore  to  get  rid  of  the  prej- 
udice, that  modes  of  thought  and  will  and  modes  of  extension 
cannot  be  referred  to  the  same  substance.  Hence  this  is  the 
true  account  of  the  universe.  All  material  bodies  (so  called) 
are  but  different  modes  of  extension,  in  which  the  necessary 
substance  projects  himself;  and  all  personal  spirits  (so  called) 
are  but  modes  of  thought  and  will,  in  which  the  same  being 
pulsates. 

Now  you  see  that  the  whole  structure  rests  on  two  unproved 
and  preposterous  assumptions  :  that  real  substance  cannot  be 
except  it  be  self-existent ;  and  that  the  self-existent  can  be  but 
one.     The  human  mind  is  incapable  of  demonstrating  either. 

Says  the  modern  idealist :  Let  the  mind  take  nothing  for 
granted,  except  the  demonstrated ;  and  it  will 
MSernldTalist  ^^^  find  that  it  really  knows  nothing  save  its  con- 
sciousnesses. Of  what  is  it  conscious  ?  Only 
of  its  own  subjective  states.  Men  fancy  that  these  must  be  re- 
ferred to  a  subject  called  mind,  spirit,  self;  as  the  substance  of 
which  they  are  states.  So  they  fancy  that  they  find  objective 
sources  for  their  sensations,  and  objective  limits  to  their  volitions  ; 
but  if  it  fancies  it  knows  either,  it  is  only  by  a  subjective  con- 
sciousness. These,  after  all,  are  its  only  real  possessions.  Hence, 
it  has  no  right  to  assert  either  substantive  self  or  objective  matter ; 
it  only  knows,  in  fact,  a  series  of  self-consciousnesses.  Hence  ; 
our  thinking  and  willing  constitute  our  being.  Hence,  too,  the 
whole  seeming  objective  world  is  only  educed  from  a  non-existence 
as  it  is  thought  by  us.  The  total  residuum  then,  is  an  imper- 
sonal power  of  thought,  only  existing  as  it  exerts  its  self-con- 
sciousness in  the  varions  beings  of  the  universe,  (if  there  is  a 
universe)  and  in  God.  Its  subjective  consciousnesses  constitute 
spiritual  substance  (so-called,)  self,  fellow-man,  God ;  and  its  ob- 
jective, the  seeming  objective  material  bodies  of  the  universe. 


24  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Against  both  these  forms  of  pantheism,  I  present  the  fol- 
Refutation.     i.  In-    lowing  outhne  of   a  refutation,      (i.)  If  the 
tuition  must  be  accept-    mind  may  not  trust  the  intuition  which  refers 
ed  as  valid.  q\\    attributes    and    affections    to    their    sub- 

stances, and  which  gives  real  objective  sources  for  sensations,  it 
may  not  beheve  in  its  intuitive  self-consciousness,  nor  in  that 
intuition  of  cause  for  every  phenomenon,  on  which  •  Spinoza 
founds  the  belief  in  his  One  Substance.  Falsus  hi  7nio;  fahus 
in  omnibus.  There  is  an  end  of  all  thinking.  That  the  intui- 
tions above  asserted,  are  necessary  and  primary,  I  prove  by  this : 
that  every  man,  including  the  idealist,  unavoidably  makes  them. 
(2.)  We  are  each  one  conscious  of  our  personality.  You 
cannot  pronounce  the  words  "self,"  Ego,  self- 
pli?s°mV''pTrLTali;""  consciousness ;  but  that  you  have  implied  it. 
Hence,  if  we  think  according  to  our  own  sub- 
jective law,  we  cannot  think  another  intelligence  and  will,  with- 
out imputing  to  it  a  personality.  Least  of  all,  the  supreme  in- 
telligence and  will.  To  deny  this  is  to  claim  to  be  more  perfect 
than  God.  But  worse  yet ;  if  I  am  not  a  person,  my  nature  is  a 
lie,  and  thinking  is  at  an  end.  If  I  am  a  person,  and  as  the 
pantheist  says,  I  am  God,  and  God  is  I,  then  he  is  a  person ;  and 
the  pantheistic  system  is  still  self-contradicted. 

(3.)  Modes   of  extension   and   modes  of  thought  and  will 
,^    ,        .  ,    cannot  be  attributes  of  one  substance.     Mat- 

Lxtension   and  .,...,, 

Thought  cannot  be  re-    ter    IS    divisible  :   neither    consciousness,    nor 
ferred  to  a  common    thought,    nor   feeling   is ;  therefore   the    sub- 
s  ance.  Stance  which  thinks  is  indivisible.     Matter  is 

extended  ;  has  form ;  has  relative  bulk  and  weight.  All  these 
properties  are  impossible  to  be  thought  of  any  function  of 
spirit,  as  relevant  to  them.  Who  can  conceive  of  a  thought 
triturated  into  many  parts,  as  a  stone  into  grains  of  sand ;  of 
a  resentment  split  into  halves ;  of  a  conception  which  is  so 
many  fractions  of  an  inch  longer  or  thicker  than  another ;  of  an 
emotion  triangular  or  circular,  of  the  top  and  bottom  of  a 
volition  ? 

(4.)  If  there  is  but  one  substance  To  FIou,  the  eternal,  self- 

,^  ^  .  existent,  necessary ;  then  it  must  be  homoire- 

If  Spmoza  true.   To  1  •     i-    •     1  1  --ri  ■     •        .1         .         •      . 

I I'.v  cannot  vary.  neous  and  indivisible,      ihis  is  at  least  a  just 

argumcntuvi  ad  hominejn  for  Spinoza.  Did 
he  not  infer  the  necessary  unity  of  all  real  substance,  from  the 
force  of  its  one  characteristic  attribute,  self  and  necessary  exis- 
tence? Now,  this  immanent  necessity,  which  is  so  imperative 
as  to  exclude  plurality;  must  it  not  also  exclude  diversity;  or 
at  least  contrariety?  How  then  can  this  one,  unchangeable 
substance  exist  at  the  same  time  in  different  and  even  contra- 
dictory states ;  motion  and  rest ;  heat  and  cold  ;  attraction  and 
repulsion  ?  How  can  it,  in  its  modes  of  thought  and  will,  at 
the  same  time  love  in  one  man,  and  hate  in  another,  the  same 
object?     How  believe  and  disbelieve  the  same  thing? 


.   OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY..  2$ 

(5)  On  this  scheme,  there  can  be  no  responsibihty,  moral 

No  Evil  nor  Good.  S°°^  °^,  ^^^^'  S^^^^'  '^'""^'f'  nghteous  penalty, 
or  moral  government  01  the  world.  All  states 
of  feeling,  and  all  volitions  are  those  of  To  f/a^.  Satan's  wrong 
volitions  are  but  God  willing,  and  his  transgressions,  God  acting. 
By  what  pretext  can  the  Divine  Will  be  held  up  as  a  moral 
standard?     Anything  which  a  creature  wills,  is  God's  will. 

(6.)  And  this  because,  next,  pantheism  is  a  scheme  of  stark 
,.  ^  necessity.     Necessity  of  this  kind  is  inconsis- 

tent with  responsibility.  But  again ;  it  contra- 
dicts our  consciousness  of  free-agency.  We  know,  by  our  con- 
sciousness, that  in  many  things  we  act  freely,  we  do  what  we  do, 
because  we  choose ;  we  are  conscious  that  our  souls  determine 
themselves.  But  if  Pantheism  were  true,  every  volition,  as  well 
as  every  other  event,  would  be  ruled  by  an  iron  fate.  So  avowed 
stoicism,  the  pantheism  of  the  Old  World :  so  admits  Spinoza. 
And  consistently ;  for  Tu  IJai^,  impersonal,  developing  itself  ac- 
cording to  an  immanent,  eternal  necessity,  must  inevitably  pass 
through  all  those  modifications  of  thought  and  extension,  which 
this  necessity  dictates,  and  no  others  ;  and  the  acts  of  God  are 
as  fated  as  ours. 

(7.)  I  retort  upon  the  pantheist  that  picture  which   he   so 

much  delights  to  unfold  in  fanciful  and  glow- 
God  would  have  all       • „•  TJi-l-.^  -U         UJT-~ 

Sin  and  Woe.  ^^S  g"ise.     Pantheism,  says  he,  by  deifymg 

nature,  clothes  everything  which  is  sweet  or 
grand  with  the  immediate  glory  of  divinity,  and  ennobles  us  by 
placing  us  perpetually  in  literal  contact  with  God.  Do  we  look 
without  on  the  beauties  of  the  landscape  ?  Its  loveliness  is  but 
one  beam  of  the  multiform  smile  upon  His  face.  The  glory  of 
the  sun  is  the  flash  of  His  eye.  The  heavings  of  the  restless 
sea  are  but  the  throbs  of  the  divine  bosom,  and  the  innumerable 
stars  are  but  the  sparkles  of  His  eternal  brightness.  And  when 
we  look  within  us,  we  recognize  in  every  emotion  which  enno- 
bles or  warms  our  breasts,  the  aspirations,  the  loves,  the  grati- 
tudes which  bless  our  being,  the  pulses  of  God's  own  heart  beat- 
ing through  us.  Nay,  but,  say  I,  are  the  manifestations  of  the 
universal  Being,  all  lovely  and  good?  If  pantheism  is  true, 
must  we  not  equally  regard  all  that  is  abhorrent  in  nature,  the 
rending  thunder,  and  the  rushing  tornado,  the  desolating  earth- 
quake and  volcanos,  the  frantic  sea  lashing  helpless  navies  into 
wreck,  as  the  throes  of  disorder  or  ruin  in  God  ?  And  when 
we  picture  the  scenes  of  sin  and  woe,  which  darken  humanity, 
the  remorse  of  the  villain's  privacy,  the  orgies  of  crime  and 
cruelty  hidden  beneath  the  veil  of  night,  the  despairing  death- 
beds, the  horrors  of  battle  fields,  the  wails  of  nations  growing 
pale  before  the  pestilence,  the  din  of  burning  and  ravaged  cities, 
and  all  the  world  of  eternal  despair  itself,  we  see  in  the  whole 
but  the  agony  and  crime  of  the  divine  Substance.  Would  it 
then  be  best  called  Devil  or  God  ?     Since  suffering  and    sin  are 


26  '   SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

SO  prevalent  in  this  world,  we  may  call  it  Pan-diabolism,  with 
more  propriety  than  pantheism.  Nor  is  it  any  relief  to  this  ab- 
horrent conclusion,  to  say  that  pain  and  evil  are  necessitated, 
and  are  only  seeming  evils.  Consciousness  declares  them 
real. 


LECTUHE  III. 

THE  EVOLUTION  THEORY. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  State  the  Evolution  Theory  of  man's  origin,  in  its  recent  form;  and  show  its 
Relation  to  the  Argument  for  God's  existence. 

2.  Show  the  Defects  in  the  pretended  Argument  for  this  Descent  of  man  by 
Evolution. 

3.  Does  the  Theory  weaken  the  Teleological  Argument  for  the  Existence  ot  a. 
Personal  God. 

See  "Origin  of 'Species"  and  "Descent  of  Man,"  by  Dr.  Charles  Darwin, 
"  Lay  Sermons,"  by  Dr.  Thos.  Huxley,  "  Physical  Basis  of  Life,"  by  Dr.  Stir- 
ling. Lectures  (Posthumous)  of  Prof.  Louis  Agassiz,  "What  is  Darwinism?" 
by  Dr.  Ch   Hodge,  "Reign  of  Law,"  by  the  Duke  of  Argyle. 

TN  the  previous  Lecture,  I  concluded  the  brief  examination 
"^  of  the  atheistic  theory,  accounting  for  the  Universe  as  an 
Relation  of  Evolu-  eternal  series,  with  these  words  :  "Genera  may 
tion  to  Teleological  begin  or  end,  but  never  transmute  themselves 
Argument.  ^^to    Other  geucvar      We    found    the    fatal 

objections  to*  the  scheme  of  a  self-existent,  infinite  series  un-- 
caused  from  without,  in  these  facts :  That  no  immediate 
antecedent  was  adequate  cause  for  its  immediate  successor : 
And  that  the  previous  links  in  the  series  could  not  because;  be- 
cause totally  absent  from  the  rise  of  the  sequent  effect.  Thus  the 
utter  fallacy  was  detected,  which  seeks  to  impose  on  our  minds 
by  the  vague  infinitude  of  the  series  as  a  whole.  We  were 
taught  that  no  series  made  up  solely  of  effects,  each  contingent, 
can,  as  a  whole,  be  self-existent.  Thus  perished  that  evasion  of 
the  atheist. 

Obviously,  if  there  is  any  expedient  for  resuscitating  it,  this 
must  be  found  in  the  attempt  to  prove  that  the  law,  "  Like  pro- 
duces Like,"  is  not  the  whole  explanation  of  the  series.  We 
have  demonstrated  that,  by  that  law,  it  is  impossible  the  series 
can  be  self-existent.  Hence,  the  best  hope  of  Atheism  is,  to 
attemi)t  to  prove  that  the  Like  does  not  produce  merely  the  Like  ; 
that  the  series  contains  within  itself  a  power  of  differentiating 
its  effects,  at  least  slightly.  Thus  materialists  and  atheists  have 
been  led  in  our  day,  either  by  deliberate  design,  or  by  a  species 
of  logical  instinct,  to  attempt  the  construction  of  an  "  evolution 
theory."  The  examination  of  this  attempt,  thus  becomes 
necessary  in  order  to  complete  the  argument  for  God's  existence, 
on  this,  the  last  conceivable  point  of  attack. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  2/ 

The  evolution  hypothesis  is,  indeed,  no  novelty.  It  is,  after 
all  its  pretended  modern  experiments,  but  a 
revival  of  the  "atomic  theory"  of  the  Greek 
atheist,  Democritus,  adopted  by  the  Epicurean  school.  Its  ap- 
plication to  the  descent  of  man  from  some  lower  animal,  has 
often  been  attempted,  as  by  Lord  Monboddo,  who  almost  exactly 
anticipated  Dr.  Chas.  Darwin's  conclusion.  In  the  eyes  of  some 
modern  Physicists,  however,  it  has  received  new  plausibility  from 
the  more  intelligent  -speculations  of  the  Naturalist  La  ]\Iarck. 
and  the  "  Vestiges  of  Creation  "  ascribed  to  Mr.  Robert  Cham- 
bers. But  it  appears  in  its  fullest  form,  in  the  ingenious  works 
of  Dr.  Chas.  Darwin,  "Origin  of  Species,"  and  "  Descent  of 
Man."     I  therefore  take  this  as  the  object  of  our  inquiry. 

This  Naturalist  thinks  that  he  has  found  the  law  of  repro- 
duction, in  animated  nature,  that  "  Like  pro- 
andSurvJvti!' ""*'''''  duces  Like,"  modified  by  the  two  laws  of  "nat- 
ural selection  "  and  a  survival  of  the  fittest." 
By  the  former,  nature  herself,  acting  unintelligently,  tends  in  all 
her  reproductive  processes,  to  select  those  copulations  which  are 
most  adapted  to  each  other  By  the  latter,  she  ordains,  equally 
without  intelligence,  that  the  fittest,  or  ablest  progeny  shall  sur- 
vive at  the  expense  of  the  inferior.  These  supposed  laws  he 
illustrates  by  the  race-varieties  (certainly  very  striking)  which 
have  been  produced  in  genera  and  species  whose  original  unity 
is  admitted  by  all,  through  the  art  of  the  bird-fancier  and  stock- 
rearer,  in  breeding.  The  result  of  these  laws,  modifying  the  great 
law  of  reproduction,  would  be  a  slight  differentiation  of  succes- 
sors from  predecessors,  in  any  series  in  animated  nature.  This 
difference  at  one  step  might  be  almost  infinitesimal.  This  coiia- 
tus  of  Nature  towards  evolution,  being  totally  blind,  and  moving 
at  hap-hazard,  might  result  in  nothing  through  a  myriad  of 
experiments,  or  instances,  and  only  evolve  something  in  advance 
of  the  antecedents,  in  the  ten  thousandth  case ;  yet,  if  we  postu- 
late a  time  sufficiently  vast,  during  which  the  law  has  been 
thus  blindly  working,  the  result  may  be  the  evolution  of  man, 
the  highest  animal,  from  the  lowest  form  of  proto-plastic  life. 

I.  The  tendency  of  this  scheme,  is  atheistic.     Some  of  its 

_  ,         .  ,   .   .    •      advocates  may  disclaim  the  consequence,  and 
bcheme  Atheistic.  ,      ,  . ,     .     •'  .  .  r        ^     i  i   A 

declare  their  recognition  oi  a  (_rod  and  Crea- 
tor, we  hope,  sincerely.  But  the  undoubted  tendency  of  the 
speculation,will  be  to  lead  its  candid  adherents,  where  Dr.  Leopold 
Bijchner  has  placed  himself,  to  blank  materialism  and  atheism. 
For  the  scheme  is  an  attempt  to  evolve  what  theists  call  the 
creation  without  a  Creator ;  and  as  we  shall  see,  the  bearing  of 
the  hypothesis  is  towards  an  utter  obliteration  of  the  teleolog- 
ical  argument.  2nd.  In  assigning  man  a  brute  origin,  it 
encourages  common  men  to  regard  themselves  as  still  brutes. 
Have  brutes  any  religion?  3d.  The  scheme  ignores  all 
substantive  distinction   between  spirit  and  matter,  by   evolving 


28  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  former  out  of  the  functions  of  mere  animahty.     But  if  there 
be  no  soul  in  man  there  is,  practically,  no  religion  for  him. 

2.  The  favorite  law  of  "natural  selection  "  involves  in  its  very 

name  a  sophistical  idea.  Selection  is  an  at- 
Selection  implies    ^-j-jj^y^g  Qf  free-agency,  and  implies  intelligent 

choice.  But  the  "  Nature  "  of  the  evolutionist 
is  unintelligent.  The  cause,  if  it  be  a  cause,  supposed  by  him  in 
his  natural  selection,  acts  blindly  and  by  hap-hazard.  Now, 
whenever  we  apply  the  idea  of  selection,  or  any  other  wdiich 
expresses  free-agency,  to  such  effects :  we  know  that  we  are 
speaking  inaccurately  and  by  a  mere  trope.  How  much  more 
sophistical  is  it  to  ascribe  the  force  of  a  permanent  and  regular 
law,  selecting  effects,  to  that  which  is  but  chance  ?  This  is  but 
giving  us  metaphor,  in  place  of  induction.  It  is  farther  noted 
by  Agassiz,  that  the  principle  of  life,  or  cause  in  animated 
nature,  notoriously  and  frequently  produces  the  same  results 
under  diverse  conditions  of  action ;  and  diverse  results  again, 
under  the  same  conditions.  These  facts  prove  that  it  is  not  the 
species  of  variable  cause  painted  by  Darwin,  and  does  not  dif- 
ferentiate its  effects  by  his  supposed  law  of  natural  selection. 

3.  We  have  seen  that  the  vastness  of  the  time  needed  for. 
the  evolution  of  man  from  the  lowest  animated  form,  by  these 
laws  of  natural  selection,  working  blindly  and  effecting  at  any 
one  movement  the  most  minute  differentiations,  is  not  only  con- 
ceded, but  claimed  by  evolutionists.  Then,  since  the  blind 
cause  probably  has  made  ten  thousand  nugatory  experiments 
for  evary  one  that  was  an  advance,  the  fossil  remains  of  all  the 
experiments,  of  the  myriads  of  genera  of  failures,  as  well  as 
the  few  genera  that  were  successes,  should  be  found  in  more 
immense  bulk.  And  especially  fossil  Natural  History  should 
present  us  with  the  full  history  of  both  sides  of  the  blind 
process ;  with  the  remains  of  the  degraded  genera,  as  well  as 
the  "  fittest "  and  "  survivin'g  "  genera.  The  fossil-history  of  the 
former  ought  to  be  ten  thousand  times  the  fullest !  But  in  the 
presence  of  such  a  history,  how  preposterous  would  a  theory 
of  evolution  appear?  For,  the  very  essence  of  this  theory  is 
the  idea  of  a  continual  advancement  and  improvement  in  nature. 

The  evolution  theor}'-  is  inconsistent  with  the  wide 
geographical  diffusion  of  species,  and  especially  '  of  the  higher 
species.  If  these  are  the  results  of  the  "  survival  of  the  fittest," 
under  local  conditions  of  existence  and  propagation,  is  it  not 
unaccountable  that  these,  and  especially  man,  the  highest  species 
of  all,  should  always  have  been  found  under  the  most  diverse 
and  general  conditions,  in  contrasted  climates?  But  if  we  pass 
to  the  lower  species,  such  as  the  moluscs  and  crustaceans,  the 
difficulty  is  as  great,  because  they  have  no  adequate  means 
of  locomotion  to  migrate  from  the  spots  where  the  local  con- 
ditions of  their  development  existed. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  2g> 

4.  But  next ;  where  improved  race-varieties  have  actually 
.  No  Improvement  by  t)een  developed,  it  may  well  be  questioned 
Selection,  save  under  a  whether  the  selections  of  the  progenitors  have 
Rational  Providence.  g^gj-  ^gg^  "  natural,"  in  the  sense  of  the  evo- 
lutionist. The  marked  instances  of  which  Darwin  makes  so 
much  use,  are  the  result  of  the  breeder's  art :  (as  the  Dur- 
ham cattle)  that  is,  of  a  rational  providence.  And  when 
we  surrender  any  individuals  of  the  varieties  to  the  domin- 
ion of  'nature,'  the  uniform  tendency  is  to  degradation.  What 
more  miserable  specimens  of  cattle  and  swine  are  ever  seen ;. 
what  individuals  less  calculated  for  "  survival  "  in  the  struggle 
for  existence,  than  the  neglected  progeny  of  the  marvellously 
developed  English  live-stock,  when  left  to  take  their  chances- 
with  the  indigenous  stock  of  ill-cultivated  districts  ?  i\gain, 
many  Naturalists  tell  us  that  when  any  incidental  cause  has- 
been  applied  to  a  given  species,  producing  variations  in  some 
individuals  and  their  progeny,  the  difference  is  larger  at  first,. 
and  becomes  more  and  more  minute  afterwards.  The  inference 
seems  irresistible,  that  such  variations  must  have  fixed  and 
narrow  limits.  Naturalists  are  familiar  with  the  tendency  of  all 
varieties,  artificially  produced  by  the  union  of  differing  progeni- 
tors, to  revert  back  to  the  type  of  one  or  other  of  their  ances- 
tors. Thus,  all  breeders  of  live-stock  recognize  the  tendency 
of  their  improved  breeds  to  "fly  to  pieces;"  and  they  know  that 
nothing  but  the  most  artful  vigilance  in  selecting  parents  pre- 
vents this  result.  Without  this  watchful  control,  the  peculiari- 
ties of  on6  or  the  other  original  varieties  would  re-appear  in  the 
progeny,  so  exaggerated,  as  to  break  up  the  improved  type,  and 
give  them  instead,  a  heterogeneous  crowd,  the  individuals 
varying  violently  from  each  other  and  from  the  desired  type, 
and  probably  inferior  to  either  of  the  original  varieties  com- 
pounded. 

Again  :  is  the  "  survival  of  the  fittest  "  a  "  natural  "  fact  ?  I 
answer ;  No.  The  natural  tendency  of  the 
uranrsu?vivr°'^'''  violences  of  the  strongest  is,  on  the  whole,  to 
increase  the  hardship  of  the  conditions  under 
which  the  whole  species  and  each  individual  must  gain  subsist- 
ence. What  better  instance  of  this  law  needs  to  be  sought,  than 
in  the  human  species ;  where  we  always  see  the  savage  anarchy, 
produced  by  the  violence  of  the  stronger,  reduce  the  whole 
tribe  to  poverty  and  destitution  ?  WHiy  else  is  it,  that  savages 
are  poorer  and  worse  provided  for  than  civilized  men  ?  Couple 
this  law  with  another:  that  the  most  pampered  individuals  in 
any  species,  are  not  the  most  prolific  ;  and  we  shall  see  that  the 
natural  tendency  of  animal  life  is,  in  the  general,  to  the  survival 
of  the  inferior.  Thus  the  average  wild  Parnpa  horse,  or  "mus- 
tang" pony,  is  far  inferior  to  the  Andalusian  steed,  from  which 
he  is  descended.  We  thus  find  an  emphatic  confirmation  of 
the  conclusion  which  Hugh  Miller   drew   from    the    "  testimony 


30 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


of  the  rocks,"  that  the  natural  tendency  of  the  fossil  genera  has 
been  to  degradation  and  not  to  development. 

Well  does  Dr.  Sterling  remark  here  :  "  Natural  conjecture 
is  always  equivocal,  insecure  and  many-sided.  It  may  be  said 
that  ancient  warfare,  for  instance,  giving  victory  always  to  the 
personally  ablest  and  bravest,  must  have  resulted  in  the  im- 
provement of  the  race.  Or,  that  the  weakest  being  left  at 
home,  the  improvement  was  balanced  by  deterioration.  Or, 
that  the  ablest  were  necessarily  most  exposed  to  danger.     And 

so according  to  ingenuity  usque  ad  infijiitmn.     Trustworthy 

conclusions  are  not  possible  to  this  method." 

5.  I  have  not  yet  seen  any  reason  for  surrendering  the  rule, 

hitherto  held  by  Naturalists,  that  in  the  animal 
^^Argument  from  Hy-    ^.Qj-ld,  hybrids,  if  true  hybrids,  are  infertile. 

The  familiar  instance  is  that  of  the  mule.  The 
genera  asinus  and  eguus  can  propagate  an  offspring,  but  that 
mule  offspring  can  propagate  nothing.  If  there  are  any  ex- 
ceptions to  this  law,  they  are  completely  consistent  with  the 
rule  that  hybrids  cannot  perpetuate  their  hybrid  kind.  If 
they  have  any  progeny,  it  is  either  absolutely  infertile ;  or 
it  has  itself  reverted  back  to  one  pf  the  original  types.  It 
is  strange  that  Dr.  Huxley  should  himself  appeal  to  this 
as  a  valid  law ;  when  its  validity  is  destructive  of  his  own 
conclusions.  In  his  "Lay  Sermons,"  p.  295,  when  it  suits 
his  purpose  to  assert  that  natural  variation  has,  in  a  given 
case,  established  a  true  species  which  is  new,  he  appeals  to  the 
fact  which  is  claimed:  that  this  new  species  propagated  its  kind; 
which  proved  it  a  true  and  permanent  species.  Which  is  to  say, 
that  hybrids  cannot  propagate  their  kind  ;  for  it  is  by  this  law 
it  is  known  that  they  do  not  form  permanent  species.  But 
now,  if  new  varieties  really  arose  from  natural  selection,  to  the 
extent  claimed  by  evolutionists,  must  they  not  fall  under  the 
hybrid  class  too  decisively,  ever  to  propagate  their  type  per- 
manently ? 

6.  This  process  imagined  by  Dr.  Darwin,  if  it  existed,  would 

be  purely  an  animal  one.    He  makes  it  a  result 

Evolution  cannot  ac-    of  physical  laws  merely.    Then,  if  there  were  a 
count  tor  iVlincL.  *-     "^ 

development  by  such  a  law,  it  should  be  the 
animal  instincts  and  bodily  organs,  which  are  developed  in  the 
higher  species.  But  it  isnot  so.  Man  is  the  highest,  and  when 
he  is  compared  with  other  viavivialia,  he  is  a  feebler  beast.  The 
young  infant  has  far  less  instinct  and  locomotion  than  the  young 
fowl.  The  man  has  less  instinct,  less  animal  capacity,  less 
strength,  blunter  senses,  than  the  eagle,  or  the  elephant,  and  less 
longevity  than  the  goose.  That  which  makes  him  a  nobler 
creature  is  his  superior  intelligence  with  the  adaptation  thereto 
of  his  inferior  animal  instincts.  He  rules  other  animals  and  is 
"Lord  of  Creation  "  by  his  mind. 

7.  This,  then,  must  also  be  explained  by  Dr.  Darwin,   as  an 


OF    LECTURES    IN   THEOLOGY.  3 1 

evolution  from  instinct  and  animal  appetites  ;  just  as  he  accounts 
for  the  evolution  of  the  human  hand,  from  the  forepaw  of  an 
ape;  so  all  the  wonders  of  consciousness,  intellect,  taste,  con- 
science, religious  belief,  are  to  be  explained  as  the  animal 
outgrowth  of  gregarious  instincts,  and  habitudes  cultivated 
through  them.  To  any  one  who  has  the  first  correct  idea  of 
construing  the  facts  of  consciousness,  this  is  simply  monstrous. 
It  of  course  denies  the  existence  of  any  substance  that  thinks, 
distinct  from  animated  matter.  It  ignores  the  distinction 
between  the  instinctive  and  the  rational  motive  in  human 
actions ;  thus  making  free-agency,  moral  responsibility,  and 
ethical  science  impossible.  The  impossibility  of  this  genesis 
is  peculiarly  plain  in  this :  that  it  must  suppose  all  these  psycho- 
logical acts  and  habits  gradually  superinduced.  There  is' first, 
in  some  earlier  generation  of  men,  a  protoplastic  responsibility, 
free  agency,  reason,  conscience,  which  are  half,  or  one  quarter 
animal  instinct  still,  and  the  rest  mental!  Whereas,  every  man  who 
ever  interpreted  his  own  acts  of  soul  to  himself,  knows  intui- 
tively, that  this  is  the  characteristic  of  them  all ;  that  they  are 
contrasted  with  the  merely  animal  acts,  in  all  their  stages  and  in 
all  their  degrees  of  weakness  or  strength.  A  feeble  conscience 
is  no  nearer  appetite,  in  its  intrinsic  quality,  than  the  conscience 
of  a  Washington  or  a  Lee. 

In  a  word :  Consciousness  has  her  facts,  as  truly  as 
physicks.  These  facts  show  that  man  belongs  to  a  certain 
ge7iiis  spiritually,  more  even  than  corporeally.  And  that  genus 
is  consciously  separated  by  a  great  gulf,  from  all  mere  animal 
nature.     It  cannot  be  developed  thence. 

8.  The  utmost  which  can  possibly  be  made  of  the  evolution 
theory,  is  that  it  may  be  a  hypothesis  possibly 
atlesT"^  "°'  ^'°'"'^  tr^e,  even  after  all  the  arguments  of  its  friends 
are  granted  to  be  valid.  In  fact,  the  scheme  is 
far  short  of  this.  The  careful  reader  of  these  works  will  find, 
amidst  extensive  knowledge  of  curious  facts,  and  abundance  of 
fanciful  ingenuity,  many  yawning  chasms  between  asserted  facts 
and  inductions;  and  many  a  substitution  of  the  "  must  be  "  for 
the  "  may  be."  But  when  we  waive  this,  we  still  find  the  theory 
unverified,  and  incapable  of  verification.  One  need  desire  no 
juster  statement  of  the  necessity  of  actual  verification,  in  order 
to  mature  a  hypothesis  into  a  demonstration,  than  is  given  and 
happily  illustrated  by  Dr.  Huxley.  "  Lay  Sermons,"  pp.  85,  6. 
Until  either  actual  experiment  or  actual  observation  has  veri- 
fied the  expectation  of  the  hypothesis ;  and  verified  it  in  'such 
away  as  to  make  it  clear  to  the  mind,  that  the  expected  result 
followed  the  antecedent  as  a  propter  hoc  and  not  a  mere  post 
hoc ;  that  hypothesis,  however  plausible,  and  seemingly  satisfy- 
ing, is  not  demonstrated.  But  has  Dr.  Darwin's  theory  been 
verified  in  any  actual  case  ?  Has  any  one  seen  the  marsupial  ape 
breed  the  man,  in    fact?     The    author  of  the    scheme  himself 


3 2  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

knows  that  verification  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  impossible. 
The  dates  at  which  he  supposes  the  evolutions  took  place,  pre- 
cede the  earhest  rational  experience  of  man,  according  to  his 
own  scheme,  by  vast  ages.  The  differentiations  which  gradually 
wrought  it  were,  according  to  him,  too  slight  and  gradual  to  be 
contained  in  the  memory  of  one  dispensation  of  man's  history. 
The  connecting  links  of  the  process  are  forever  lost.  Hence  the 
utmost  which  these  Naturalists  could  possibly  make  of  their 
hypothesis,  were  all  their  assumptions  granted,  would  be  the 
concession  that  it  contained  a  curious  possibility. 

These  speculations  are  mischievous  in  that  they  present 
to  minds  already  degraded,  and  in  love  with 
Dangerous  to  Morals.  ^^^^-^  ^^^  degradation,  a  pretext  for  their  mate- 
rialism, godlessness  and  sensuality.  The  scheme  can  never 
prevail  generally  among  mankind.  The  self-respect,  the  con- 
science, and  the  consciousness  of  men  will  usually  present  a 
sufficient  protest  and  refutation.  The  world  will  not  permaently' 
tolerate  the  libel  and  absurdity,  that  this  wondrous  creature, 
man,  "  so  noble  in  reason,  so  infinite  in  faculties,  in  form  and 
m.oving  so  express  and  admirable,  in  action  so  like  an  angel,  in 
apprehension  so  like  a  God,"  is  but  the  descendant,  at  long  re- 
moves, of  a  mollusc  or  a  tadpole  ! 

The  worthlessness  of   mere   plausibilities  concerning  the 
Circumstantial    evi-    origm  of  the  universe,  is  yet  plainer  when  set 
dence  refuted  by  pa-    in  contrast  with  that  inspired  testimony  upon 
'■"l'^-  the  subject,  to  which  Revealed  Theology  will 

soon  introduce  us.  Hypothetical  evidence,  even  at  its  best 
estate,  comes  under  the  class  of  circumstantial  evidence.  Ju- 
dicial science,  stimulated  to  accuracy  and  fidelity  by  the  prime 
interests  of  society  in  the  rights  and  the  life  of  its  members,  has 
correctly  ascertained  the  relation  between  circumstantial  proof 
and  competent  parole  testimony.  In  order  to  rebut  the  word 
of  such  a  witness,  the  circumstantntial  evidence  must  be  an  ex- 
clusive demonstration :  it  must  not  only  satisfy  the  reason  that 
the  criminal  act  might  have  been  committed  in  the  supposed 
way,  by  the  supposed  persons ;  but  that  it  was  impossible,  it 
could  have  been  committed  in  any  other  way.  In  the  absence 
of  parole  testimony,  every  enlightened  judge  would  instruct  his 
jury,  that  the  defence  isjentitled  to  try  the  hypothesis  of  the  ac- 
cuser by  this  test :  If  any  other  hypothesis  can  be  invented, 
that  is  even  purely  imaginary,  to  which  the  facts  granted  in  the 
circumstantial  evidence  can  be  reconciled  by  the  defence,  that 
is  proof  of  invalidity  in  the  accusing  hypothesis.  Let  us  sup- 
pose a  crime  committed  without  known  eye-witnesses.  The 
prosecutors  examine  every  attendant  circumstance  minutely, 
and  study  them  profoundly.  They  construct  of  them  a  sup- 
position that  the  crime  was  committed  in  secret  by  A.  They 
show  that  this  supposition  of  his  guilt  satisfies  every  fact,  so 
far  as  known.     They  reason  with  such    ingenuity,    that    every 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  ^^ 

mind  tends  to  the  conviction  that  A.  must  be  verily  guilty.  But 
now  there  comes  forward  an  honest  man,  who  declares  that  he 
was  eye-witness  of  the  crime ;  and,  that,  of  his  certain  knowl- 
edge, it  was  done  by  B.,  and  not  by  A.  On  inquiry,  it  appears 
that  B.  was,  at  that  time,  naturally  capable  of  the  act.  Then, 
unless  the  prosecutors  can  attack  the  credibility  of  this  witness, 
before  his  word  their  case  utterly  breaks  down.  The  ingenuity, 
the  plausibility  of  their  argument,  is  now  naught.  They  had 
shown  that,  so  far  as  "known  facts  had  gone,  the  act  might  have 
been  done  by  A.  But  the  witness  proves  that  in  fact  it  was 
done  by  B.  The  plausibility  of  the  hypothesis  and  the  ingen- 
uity of  the  lawyers  are  no  less  :  but  they  are  utterly  super- 
seded by  direct  testimony  of  an  eye-witness.  I  take  this  pains 
to  illustrate  to  you  this  principle  of  evidence,  because  it  is 
usually  so  utterly  ignored  by  Naturalists,  and  so  neglected  even 
by  Theologians.  I  assert  that  the  analogy  is  perfect  between 
the  case  supposed  and  the  pretended  evolution  argument. 
Does  Revelation  bring  in  the  testimony  of  the  divine  Eye-wit- 
ness, because  actual  Agent,  of  the  genesis  of  the  universe  ?  Is 
Revelation  sustained  as  a  credible  witness  by  its  literary,  its  in- 
ternal, its  moral,  its  prophetical,  its  miraculous  evidences  ?  Then 
even  though  the  evolution  hypothesis  were  scientifically  prob- 
able, in  the  light  of  all  known  and  physical  facts  and  laws,  it 
must  yield  before  this  competent  witness.  Does  that  theory 
claim  that,  naturally  speaking,  organisms  might  have  been  thus 
produced  ?  God,  the  Agent,  tells  us  that,  in  point  of  fact,  they 
were  otherwise  produced.  As  Omnipotence  is  an  agency  con- 
fessedly competent  to  any  effect  whatsoever,  if  the  witness  is 
credible,  the  debate  is  ended. 

I  shall  conclude  this  Lecture  by  adverting  to  a  consequence 
which  many  of  Dr.  Darwin's  followers  draw 
argunS  £!.'°^°^'''^  ^^^"^  ^^'^  scheme  ;  which  is  really  the  most  im- 
portant feature  connected  with  it.  Dr.  Huxley 
declares  that  the  "Origin  of  Species"  gives  the  death-blow  to  that 
great  teleological  argument  for  the  existence  of  God,  which  has 
commanded  the  assent  of  all  the  comm.on-sense  and  all  the 
true  philosophy  of  the  human  race.  He  quotes  Prof  Kolliker, 
of  Germany,  as  saying  that  though  Darwin  retains  the  teleolog- 
ical conception,  it  is  shown  by  his  own  researches  to  be  a  mis- 
taken one.  Says  the  German  savant,  "Varieties  arise  irre- 
spectively of  the  notion  of  purpose  of  utilty,  Naccording  to  the 
general  laws  of  nature ;  and  may  be  either  useful  or  hurtful,  or 
indifferent."  It  must  be  admitted  these  men  interpret  the  bear- 
ings of  the  evolution  theory  aright ;  [and  that  it  does  bear 
against  the  impregnable  evidences  of  design  in  God's  creation, 
is  a  clear  proof  of  its  falsehood].  According  to  this  scheme 
physical  causation  is  blind;  but  it  hits  a  lucky  adapta- 
tion here  and  there,  without  knowing  or  meaning  it,  by  mere 
chance,  and  in  virtue  of  such  an  infinity  of  hap-hazard  trials 
3* 


34  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

that  it  is  impossible  to  miss  all  the  time.  Such  is  the  imme- 
diate, though  blind,  result  of  Nature's  tendancy  to  ceaseless 
variations  of  structure.  Now,  when  (rarely)  she  happens  to  hit 
a  favorable  variation,  the  better  adaptation  of  that  organism  to 
the  conditions  of  existence  enables  it  to  survive  and  to  prop- 
agate its  type  more  numerously,  where  others  perish.  Where 
now  is  the  proof  of  intelligence  and  design  in  such  a  fortuitous 
adaptation?  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  argues  that  it  is  mere  "an- 
thropomorphism," for  us  to  undertake  to  interpret  nature  teleo- 
logically.  When  we  adapt  anything  to  an  end,  we,  of  course, 
design  and  contrive.  But  when  we  therefore  assume  that  the 
Great  Unknowable  works  by  suchthoughts.we  are  as  absurd  as 
though  the  watch  [in  the  well-known  illustration  of  Dr.  Paley] 
becoming  somewhat  endowed  with  consciousness,  should  con- 
clude that  the  consciousness  of  its  Unknown  Cause  must  con- 
sist of  a  set  of  ticking  and  motions  of  springs  and  cogs,  because 
such  only  are  its  own  functions.  Some  of  these  writers  dwell 
much  upon  the  supposed  error  of  our  mixing  the  question  of 
"  final  causes  "  with  that  of  efficient  causes,  in  our  investigation 
of  nature.  They  claim  that  Lord  Bacon,  in  his  De  Aitgnientis, 
sustains  this  condemnation.  This  is  erroneous.  He  does  disap- 
prove the  mixing  of  the  question  of  final  cause  with  the  search 
after  the  physical  cause.  He  points  out  that  the  former  be- 
longs to  Metaphysics,  the  latter  to  Physics.  Let  the  ques- 
tion be,  for  instance :  "  Why  do  hairs  grow  around  the  eye- 
brows?" There  are  two  meanings  in  this  "Why."  If  it  asks 
the  final  cause,  the  answer  is:  "For  the  protection  of  the 
precious  and  tender  organ  beneath  the  brow."  If  it  asks  the 
physical  cause.  Lord  Bacon's  answer  is :  that  a  follicular  struc- 
ture of  that  patch  of  skin  "breedeth  a  pilous  growth."  He 
clearly  asserts,  in  his  Metaphysic,  that  inquiries  after  the  final 
cause  are  proper ;  and  he  was  emphaticall}'  a  believer  in  the 
teleological  argument,  as  was  Newton,  with  every  other  great 
mind  of  those  ages. 

Let  us   clear  the   way  for  the   exposure  of  the   sophisms 
Is  ourartTumentsus-    Stated   above,   by  looking    at  Spencer's  ob- 
picious because anthro-   jection  to  the  anthropomorphism  of  our  Nat- 
pomorphic .-  ^j.^^^  Theology.     He  would   have  us  believe 

that  it  is  all  vicious,  because  founded  on  the  groundless  pos- 
tulate that  our  thought  and  contrivance  are  the  model  for  the 
mind  of  God.  He  would  illustrate  this,  as  we  saw,  by  suppos- 
ing the  watch,  in  Paley's  illustration,  "to  have  a  consciousness," 
etc.  This  simile  betrays  his  sophism  at  once.  The  supposi- 
tion is  impossible!  If  the  watch  could  have  a  consciousness, 
it  would  not  be  a  material  machine,  but  a  rational  spirit :  and 
then  thore  would  be  no  absurdity  whatever  in  its  liken- 
ing its  own  rational  consciousness  to  that  of  its  rational  cause. 
When  complaint  is  made  that  all  our  Natural  Theology  is  "an- 
thropomorphic," what  is  this  but  a  complaint  that  our  knowl- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  35 

edge  is  human  ?  If  I  am  to  have  any  knowledge,  it  must  be  my 
knowledge  :  that  is,  the  knowledge  of  me,  a  man  ;  and  so,  knowl- 
edge, according  to  the  forms  of  human  intelligence.  All  knowl- 
edge must  then  be  anthropomorphic, in  order  to  be  human  knowl- 
edge. To  complain  of  any  branch  of  man's  knowledge  on  this 
score,  is  to  demand  that  he  shall  know  nothing !  This,  indeed,  is 
verified  by  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  who  teaches,  on  the  above 
ground,  that  God  is  only  to  be  conceived  of  and  honored  as  "The 
Unknowable  ;"  and  w4io  forbids  us  to  ascribe  any  definite  attri- 
bute, or  offer  any  specific  service  to  Him,  lest  we  should  insult 
Him  by  making  Him  altogether  such  an  one  as  ourselves.  I  may 
remark,  in  passing,  that  this  is  equally  preposterous  in  logic, 
and  practically  atheistic.  The  mind  only  knows  substance  from 
properties  :  if  the  essentia  of  an  object  of  thought  be  abso- 
lutely unknown,  its  esse  will  certainly  be  more  unknown.  And 
how  can  one  be  more  completely  "without  God  in  the  world," 
than  he  who  only  knows  of  a  divine  Being,  to  whom  he  dares  not 
ascribe  any  attribute,  towards  w'hom  he  dares  not  entertain  any 
definite  feeling,  and  to  whom  he  dares  not  offer  any  service  ? 

But  why  should  our  knowledge  of  a  higher  spiritual  being  be 
suspected,  as  untrustworthy,  because'  it  is  anthropomorphic  ?  It 
can  only  be,  because  it  is  suspected  that  this  knowledge  is  trans- 
formed, in  becoming  ours.  But  now,  let  it  be  supposed  that 
the  great  First  Cause  created  our  spirits  "in  his  likeness, 
after  his  image,"  and  the  ground  of  suspicion  is  removed.  Then 
it  follows  that  in  thinking  "anthropomorphically,"  we  are  thinking 
like  God  :  because  God  formed  us  to  think  like  himself.  Our 
conceptions  of  the  divine  will  then  be  only  limited,  not  trans- 
formed, in  passing  into  our  kindred,  but  finite,  minds  :  they  re- 
main valid,  as  far  as  they  reach.  But  it  may  be  said  :  This  is 
the  very  question  :  whether  a  Creator  did  form  our  spirits  after 
the  likeness  of  His  own?  The  theists  must  not  assume  it  at  the 
onset  as  proved.  Very  true  ;  and  their  opponents  shall  not  be 
allowed  to  assume  the  opposite  as  proved — they  shall  not  "  beg 
the  question  "  any  more  than  we  do.  But  when  our  inquiries  in 
Natural  Theology  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  in  this  respect 
"  we  are  God's  offspring,"  then  He  is  no  longer  the  "  Unknown 
God."  And  especially  when  Revealed  Theology  presents  us 
the  ^ Er/MV  ro~j  dto~j  bpCroo  in  the  "man  Christ  Jesus,"  the  diffi- 
culty is  completely  solved. 

To  support  the  teleological  argument  farther  against  this 

philosophy  of  blind  chance,   I  remark,   first: 

^^Chance  cannot  evolve  ^j^^^  j^  jg  -^^  ^^  ^^^^3^  j^^^  unreasonable  than 

the  old  pagan  theory,  which  referred  all  the 
skillful  adjustments  of  creation  to  a  "fortuitious  concourse  of 
atoms."  This  is  indeed  the  same  wTetched  philosophy: 
re-vamped  and  re-furbished,  which  excited  the  sarcasm  and 
scorn  of  Socrates,  and  was  contemptuously  discarded  b}'  the 
educated    pagan    mind.      It    is    imposible    to    persuade    the 


36  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

common  sense  of  mankind,  that  blind  chance,  whose  sole 
attribute  is  chaotic  disorder,  is  the  source  of  the  admirable 
order  of  this  universal  xootioz.  Something  does  not  come  out 
of  nothing.  Our  opponents  would  ask  us;  since  blind  chance 
may,  amidst  its  infinite  multitudes  of  experiments,  happen 
upon  any  result  whatsoever,  why  may  it  not  sometimes  happen 
upon  some  results  wearing  the  aspect  of  orderly  adaptation  ? 
My  answer  is,  that  the  question  puts  the  case  falsely.  Some- 
times !  No !  Always.  The  fact  to  be  accounted  for  is  ;  that 
Nature's  results  always  have  an  orderly  adaptation.  I  press  again 
this  crushing  question:  How  is  it  that  in  every  one  of  Na- 
ture's results,  in  every  organ  of  every  organized  creature  which 
is  extant,  either  in  living  or  in  fossil  natural  Histor}',  if  the  struc- 
ture is  comprehended  by  us,  we  see  some  orderly  adaptation? 
Where  are  Nature's  failures?  Where  the  vast  remains  of  the  in- 
finity of  her  hap-hazard,  orderless  results?  On  the  evolution 
theory,  they  should  be  a  myriad  times  as  numerous  as 
those  which  possessed  orderly  adaptation.  But  in  fact,  none  are 
found,  save  a  few  which  are  apparent  exceptions,  because,  and 
only  because,  we  have  not  yet  knowledge  enough  to  compre- 
hend them.  Through  every  grade  of  fossil  life,  if  we  are  able 
at  all  to  understand  the  creature  whose  remains  we  inspect^ 
we  perceive  an  admirable  adjustment  to  the  conditions  of  its 
existence.  This  is  as  true  of  the  least  developed,  as  of  the 
most  perfect.  The  gemis  may  be  now  totally  extinct:  because 
the  appropriate  conditions  of  its  existence  have  wholly  passed 
away  in  the  progress  of  changes  upon  the  earth's  surface  ;  but 
while  those  conditions  existed,  they  were  beautifully  appropriate 
to  the  gemis.  So,  if  there  is  any  structure  in  arr\'  existing  crea- 
ture, whose  orderly  adaptation  to  an  end  is  not  seen,  it  is  only 
because  we  do  not  yet  understand  enough.  Such  is  the  con- 
clusion of  true  science.  Anatomists  before  Dr.  Harvey  saw 
the  valvular  membranes  in  the  arteries  and  veins,  opening  oppo- 
site ways.  That  great  man  assumed,  in  the  spirit  of  true 
science,  that  they  must  have  their  orderly  adaptation;  and  this 
postulate  led  him  to  the  grand  discovery  of  the  circulation  of 
the  blood.  Such  is  the  postulate  of  true,  modest  science  still, 
as  to  every  structure:  it  is  the  pole-star  of  sound  induction.  And 
once  more:  Contrivance  to  an  end  is  not  limited  to  organic 
life  reproducing  after  its  kind — the  department  where  the  evo- 
lutionist finds  his  pretext  of  "natural  selection."  The  perma- 
nent inorganic  masses  also  disclose  theteleological  argument,] ust 
as  clearly  as  the  organic.  Sun,  moon  and  stars  do  not  propagate 
any  day!  Contrivance  is  as  obvious  in  the  planetary  motions 
and  the  tides  of  ocean,  as  in  the  eye  of  the  animal.  "The  un- 
devout  Astronomer  is  mad".  Commodore  Maury,  in  his  im- 
mortal works,  has  shown  us  as  beautiful  a  system  of  adaptations 
in  the  wastes  of  the  atmosphere  and  its  currents,  as  the  Nat- 
ural Historian  finds  in  the  realms  of  life. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  37 

Second:  I  remark  that  if  the  theory  of  the  evolutionist 
were  all  conceded,  the  argument  from  de- 
suS'tibflftytfvolvS  f g^ed  adaptation  would  not  be  abolished, 
but  only  removed  one  step  backward.  If 
we  are  mistaken  in  believing  that  God  made  every  living 
creature  that  moveth  after  its  kind  :  if  the  higher  kinds  were 
in  fact  all  developed  from  the  lowest;  then  the  question 
recurs:  Who  planned  and  adjusted  these  wondrous  powers 
of  development?  Who  endowed  the  cell-organs  of  the  first 
living  protoplasm  with  all  this  fitness  for  evolution  into 
the  numerous  and  varied  wonders  of  animal  life  and  function, 
so  diversified,  yet  all  orderly  adaptations  ?  There  is  a  wonder 
of  creative  wisdom  and  power,  at  least  equal  to  that  of  the 
Mosaic  genesis.  That  this  point  is  justly  taken,  appears 
thus:  Those  philosophers  who  concede  (as  I  conceive,  ver}^ 
unphilosophically  and  unnecessarily)  the  theory  of  "  crea- 
tion by  law,"  do  not  deem  that  they  have  thereby  weakened 
the  teleological  argument  in  the  least.  It  appears  again,  in  the 
language  of  evolutionists  themselves:  When  they  unfold  what 
they  suppose  to  be  the  results  of  this  system,  they  utter  the 
words  "beautiful  contrivance  of  nature,"  "wise  adjustment"  and 
such  like,  involuntarily.  This  is  the  testimony  of  their  own  rea- 
son, uttered  in  spite  of  a  perverse  and  shallow  theory. 

In  fine;  when  we  examine  any  of  these  pretended  results 
of  fortuity,  we  always  find  that  the  chance-accident  was  only 
the  occasion,  and  not  the  efficient  cause,  of  that  result.  Says  one 
of  the  evolutionists:  a  hurricane  may  transplant  a  tree  so  as  to 
secure  its  growth.  The  wind  may  happen  to  drop  a  sapling, 
which  the  torrent  had  torn  up,  with  its  roots  downward,  (they 
forming  the  heavier  end)  into  a  chasm  in  the  earth,  which  the 
same  hurricane  makes  by  uprooting  a  forest  tree.  But  I  ask: 
Who  ordains  the  atmospheric  laws  which  move  hurricanes!  Who 
regulated  the  law  of  gravity?  Who  endued  the  roots  of  that 
sapling,  as  its  twigs  are  not  endued,  with  the  power  of  drawing 
nutriment  from  the  moist  earth?  Did  the  blind  hurricane  do  all 
this?  Whenever  they  thus  attempt  to  account  for  a  result  by 
natural  selection,  they  tacitly  avail  themselves  of  a  selected 
adaptation  which  is,  in  every  case,  a  priori  to  the  physical  results. 
Who  conferred  that  prior  adaptation  and  power?  "If  they  had 
not  ploughed  with  our  heifer,  they  had  not  found  out  our  riddle." 

You  may  be  inclined  to  ask,  why  it  is  that  I,  who  assuredly 
believe  this  speculation  of  recent  evolutionists  will  prove  as 
short-lived  as  it  is  shallow,  introduce  a  discussion  of  it  into  this 
venerable  and  stable  science  of  theology?  My  reply  is:  that 
"Darwinism"  happens  just  now  to  be  the  current  manifestation, 
which  the  fashion  of  the  day  gives  to  the  permanent  anti-theis- 
tic  tendency  in  sinful  man.  As  long  as  men  do  not  like  to  retain 
God  in  their  knowledge,  the  objection  to  the  argument  for  His 
existence  will  re-appear  in  some  form.     And  the  forms  will  all 


38  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

be  found  cognate.  This  recent  evolution  theory  verges  every 
year  nearer  to  the  pagan  atomic  theory.  In  discussing  it  under 
its  existing  aspect,  I  seek  to  give  you  guidance  which  you 
will  find  ad  rem,  in  your  dealing  with  the  unbelieving  minds  of 
our  own  day.  But  I  have  also  given  you,  in  substance,  prin- 
ciples which  will  be  applicable  to  any  phase  of  the  anti-theistic 
argument. 


LECTURE  IV. 

DIVINE  ATTRIBUTES. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  How  much   can    Reason   infer  of  the  Attributes  of  God  ?     His   Eternity  ? 
How? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.   10.     Dick,  Lect.  17.     Dr.  S.  Clarke,  §  i,  2,  5.     Char- 
nock  on  Attr.  Vol.  i,  Discourse  v. 

2.  His  Unity  ?  How  ?  Turrettin,  Qu.  3.  Paley,  Nat.  Theology.  Dr.  Dick, 
Lect.  iS.     Dr.  S.  Clarke,  §7.     Mauiy,  Physical  Geography  of  Sea,  p.  71. 

3.  His  Spirituahty  and  Simplicity  ?  How?  Turrettin,  Qu.  7.  Dick,  Lect.  17^ 
Dr.  S.  Clarke,  §8.  Rev.  Ro.  Hall,  Sermon  i,  Vol.  3d.  Thornwell,  Lect. 
6th,  pp.  162-166.     Lect.  7th,  pp,  186,  &c. 

4.  His  Immensity  and  Infinitude  ?  How  ?  Turrettin,  Qu.  8  &  9.  Dick,  Lect- 
19.  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  \  6.  Charnock,  Vol.  i.  Discourse  7th.  Thornwell^ 
iect.  8th. 

5.  His  Immutabihty  ?  Turrettin,  Qu.  11.  Thornwell,  Lect  8,  ^  5.  Dick,  Lect. 
20th.     Dr.  S.  Clarke,  \  2.     Charnock,  Vol.  i,  Discourse  6th. 

TT  is  exceedingly  hard  for  us  to  return  an  exact  answer  to  the 
-^     question.  How  much  reason  can  infer  of  the  attributes  of 

Traditionary  knowl-  God  ?  Shall  we  Say :  "  So  much  as  the  wisest 
edge  not  to  be  separa-  pagans,  like  Plato,  discovered  of  them?"  It 
ted  from  rational,  here,  g^j^  remains  doubtful  how  much  unacknowl- 
edged aid  he  may  not  have  received  from  Hebrew  sources. 
Many  think  that  Plato  received  much  through  Pythagoras 
and  his  Egyptian  and  Mesopotamian  researches.  Or  if  we 
seek  to  find  how  far  our  own  minds  can  go  on  this  subject, 
without  drawing  upon  the  Scriptures,  we  are  not  sure  of  the 
answer ;  because  when  results  have  been  given  to  us,  it  is 
much  easier  to  discover  the  logical  tie  between  them  and  their 
premises,  than  to  detect  unaided  both  proofs  and  results.  Eu- 
clid having  told  us  that  the  square  of  the  hypothenuse  equals 
the  squares  of  the  two  remaining  sides  of  every  right  angled 
triangle,  it  becomes  much  easier  to  hunt  up  a  synthetic  argu- 
ment to  prove  it,  than  it  would  have  been  to  detect  this  great 
relation  by  analysis.  But  when  we  approach  Natural  Theology 
we  cannot  forget  the  attributes  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to 
God. 

Yet  some  things  are  as  clear  as  God's  being.     The  first 
.  and  most  obvious  of  these  attributes  is,  that 

I.     0   s  eternity.        He  has  no  beginning,  and  no  end.     By  God's 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  39 

eternity  divines  also  intend  a  third  thing :  His  existence  with- 
out succession.  These  three  propositions  express  their 
definition  of  His  eternity :  existence  not  related  to  time.  For 
the  first:  His  being  never  had  a  beginning:  for  had  there 
ever  been  a  time  when  the  First  Cause  was  not,  nothing 
could  ever  have  existed.  So  natural  reason  indicates  that 
His  being  will  never  end,  by  this,  that  all  pagans  and  philoso- 
phers make  their  gods  immortal.  The  account  of  this 
conclusion  seems  to'  be,  that  it  follows  from  God's  independ- 
ence, self-existence,  and  necessary  existence.  These  show  that 
there  can  be  no  cause  to  make  God's  being  end.  The  immor- 
tality of  the  First  Cause  then  is  certain,  unless  we  ascribe  to  it  the 
power  and  wish  of  self-annihilation.  But  neither  of  these  is 
possible.  What  should  ever  prompt  God's  will  to  such  a  voli- 
tion ?  His  simplicity  of  substance  (to  be  separately  proved  anon) 
does  not  permit  the  act;  for  the  only  kind  of  destruction  of  which 
the  universe  has  any  experience,  is  by  disintegration.  The 
necessity  of  God's  existence  proves  it  can  never  end.  The 
ground  of  His  existence,  intrinsic  in  Himself,  is  such  that  it 
cannot  but  be  operative;  witness  the  fact  that,  had  it  been,  at 
any  moment  of  the  past  infinite  duration,  inoperative,  God  and 
the  universe  would  have  been,  from  that  moment,  forever 
impossible. 

But  that  God's  existence  is  without  succession,  does  not 
.    „      seem  so  clear  to  natural  reason.     It  is  urg^ed 

Is  It  unsuccessive?        ,         t-.  , ,  •        ,,     ,     .,^      ...  ?»    , 

by  iurrettm  that  "God  is  immense.  But 
if  His  existence  were  measured  by  parts  of  duration,  it 
would  not  be  incommensurable."  This  is  illogical.  Do  not 
the  schoolmen  themselves  say,  that  essentia  and  esse  are 
not  the  same  ?  To  measure  the  continuance  of  God's  esse  by 
successive  parts  of  time,  is  not  to  measure  His  essence  thereby. 
A  similar  distinction  shows  the  weakness  of  Turrettin's  second 
argument :  "  That  because  simple  and  immutable.  He  cannot 
exist  in  succession,  for  the  flux  of  being  from  past  to  present 
and  present  to  future  would  be  change,  and  even  change  of 
composition."  I  reply  it  is  God's  substance  which  is  simple  and 
immutable;  that  its  subsistence  should  be  a  continuance  in  suces- 
sion  does  not  imply  a  change  in  substance.  Nor  is  it  correct 
metaphysics  to  say  that  a  subsistence  in  succession  is  com- 
pounded, namely  of  the  essence  and  the  successive  momenta  of 
time  through  which  it  is  transmitted.    (See  here,  Kant.) 

Nor  is  Dr  Dick's  argument  even  so  plausible:  That  God's 
being  in  a  past  eternity  must  be  unsuccessive,  because  an  infinite 
past,  composed  of  successive  parts,  is  impossible;  and  whatever 
God's  mode  of  subsistence  was,  that  it  is,  and  will  be.  An  in- 
finite future  made  up  of  a  succession  of  infinitely  numerous 
finite  parts  is  possible,  as  Dick  admits;  and  so  an  infinite  past 
thus  constituted  is  equally  as  possible.  Neither  is  comprehen- 
sible to  our  minds.     If  Turrettin  or  Charnock  only   meant   that 


40  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

God's  subsistence  is  not  a  succession  marked  off  by  changes  in 
His  essence  or  states,  their  reasonings  would  prove  it.  But  if  it 
is  meant  that  the  divine  consciousness  of  its  own  existence  has 
no  relation  to  successive  duration,  I  think  it  unproved,  and  in- 
capable of  proof  to  us.  Is  not  the  whole  plausibility  of  the  no- 
tion hence;  that  divines,  following  that  analysis  of  our  idea  of 
our  own  duration  into  the  succession  of  our  own  consciousnesses, 
(which  Locke  made  so  popular  in  his  war  against  innate  ideas,) 
infer:  Since  all  God's  thoughts  and  acts  are  ever  equally  present 
with  Him,  He  can  have  no  succession  of  His  consciousnesses; 
and  so,  no  relation  to  successive  time.  But  the  analysis  is  false 
(see  Lecture  viii,)  and  would  not  prove  the  conclusion  as  to  God,  if 
correct.  Though  the  creature's  consciousnesses  constituted  an 
unsuccessive  unit  act,  as  God's  do,  it  would  not  prove  that  the 
consciousness  of  the  former  was  unrelated  to  duration.  But  2d. 
In  all  the  acts  and  changes  of  creatures,  the  relation  of  succes- 
sion is  actual  and  true.  Now,  although  God's  knowledge  of 
these  as  it  is  subjective  to  Himself,  is  unsuccessive,  yet  it  is 
doubtless  correct,  i.  e.,  true  to  the  objective  facts.  But  these 
have  actual  succession.  So  that  the  idea  of  successive  duration 
must  be  in  God's  thinking.  Has  He  not  all  the  ideas  we  have; 
and  infinitely  more?  But  if  God  in  thinking  the  objective,  ever 
thinks  successive  duration,  can  we  be  sure  that  His  own  con- 
sciousness of  His  own  subsistence  is  unrelated  to  succession  in 
time?  The  thing  is  too  high  for  us.  The  attempt  to  debate  it 
will  only  produce  one  of  those  "antinomies"  which  emerge, 
when  we  strive  to  comprehend  the  incomprehensible. 

Does  reason  show  the  First  Cause  to  be  one  or  plural?  If 

,,  .      r^.  or^e  •  whence  the  stroncr  tendency  to  poly- 

2.  Unity  of  God.  , ,     •        -,      t-i  •  i    ^  i    •       j     •  , 

tneism  ?      i  his    may  be  explamed   in    part 

by  the  craving  of  the  common  mind  for  concrete  ideas.  We 
may  add  the  causes  stated  by  Turrettin  :  That  man's  sense 
of  weakness  and  exposure  prompts  him  to  lean  upon  superior 
strength:  That  gratitude  and  admiration  persuade  him  to 
deify  human  heroes  and  benefactors  at  their  deaths :  And 
that  the  copiousness  and  variety  of  God's  agencies  have 
suggested  to  the  incautious  a  plurality  of  agents.  Hodge 
(Theol.  P.  I.  Ch,  3.)  seems  to  regard  Pantheism  as  the 
chief  source  of  polytheism.  He  believes  that  pantheistic  con- 
ceptions of  the  universe  have  been  more  persistent  and  prevalent 
in  all  ages  than  any  other.  "Polytheism  has  its  origin  in  nature- 
worship: and  nature  worships  rests  on    the    assumption    that 

nature  is  God." 

But  I  am  persuaded  a  more  powerful  impulse  to  polytheism 
arises  from  the  co-action  of  two  natural  principles  in  the  absence 
of  a  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ.  One  is  the  sense  of  weakness 
and  dependence,  craving  a  superior  power  on  whom  to  lean. 
The  other  is  the  shrinking  of  conscious  guilt  from  infinite  holiness 
and  power.     The  creature  needs  a  God:  the  sinner   fears  a  God. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  4 1 

The  expedient  which  results  is,  the  invention  of  intermediate 
and  mediating  divinities,  more  able  than  man  to  succour,  yet 
less  awful  than  the  infinite  God,  Such  is  notably  the  account 
of  the  invention  of  saint  worship,  in  that  system  of  baptized 
polytheism  known  as  Romanism.  And  here  we  see  the  divine 
adaptation  of  Christianity;  in  that  it  gives  us  Christ,  very  man, 
our  brother:  and  very  God,  our  Redeemer. 

Reason  does  pronounce  God  one.  But  here  again,  I  repu- 
diate weak  supports.  Argues  Turrettin :  If  there  are  more 
than  one,  all  equal,  neither  is  God :  if  unequal,  only  the 
highest  is  God.  This  idea  of  exclusive  supremacy  is  doubtless 
essential  to  religious  trust ;  Has  it,  thus  far,  been  shown  essen- 
tial to  the  conception  of  a  First  Cause  ?  Were  there  two  or  more 
independent  eternal  beings,  neither  of  them  would  be  an  infalli- 
ble object  of  trust.  But  has  it  been  proved  as  yet,  that  we  are 
entitled  to  expect  such  a  one  ?  Again,  Dr.  S.  Clarke  urges : 
The  First  Cause  exists  necessarily :  but  (a.)  This  necessity  must 
operate  forever,  and  everywhere  alike,  and,  (b,)  This  absolute 
sameness  must  make  oneness.  Does  not  this  savour  of  Spino- 
z'lsm  ?  Search  and  see.  As  to  the  former  proposition  :  all  that 
we  can  infer  from  necessary  existence  is,  that  it  cannot  but  be 
just  what  it  is.  What  it  is,  whether  singular,  dual,  plural ;  that 
is  just  the  question.  As  to  the  2d  proposition,  sameness  of 
operation  does  not  necessarily  imply  oneness  of  effect.  Have 
two  successive  nails  from  the  same  machine,  necessarily  numer- 
ical identity  ?  Others  argue  again  :  We  must  ascribe  to  God 
every  conceivable  perfection,  because, if  not,  another  more  perfect 
might  be  conceived  ;  and  then  he  would  be  the  God.  I  reply, 
yes,  if  he  existed.  It  is  no  reasoning  to  make  the  capacity  of 
our  imaginations  the  test  of  the  substantive  existence  of  object- 
ive things.  Again,  it  is  argued  more  justly,  that  if  we  can  show 
that  the  eternal  self-existent  Cause  must  be  absolute  and  infinite 
in  essence,  then  His  exclusive  unity  follows,  for  that  which  is 
infinite  is  all-embracing  as  to  that  essence.  Covering,  so  to 
speak,  all  that  kind  of  being,  it  leaves  no  room  for  anything  of 
its  kind  coordinate  with  itself.  Just  as  after  defining  a  universe, 
we  cannot  place  any  creature  outside  of  it:  so, 'if  God  is 
infinite,  there  can  be  but  one.  Whether  He  is  infinite  we  shall 
inquire. 

The  valid  and  practical  argument,  however,  for  God's  unity 
Argued  from  Inter-    is    the    convergency    of    design    and   inter- 
dependence of  all  His    dependency  of  all  His  works.     All  dualists, 
^^^'^'^^       '  indeed,  from  Zoroaster  to  Manes,  find  their 

pretexts  in  the  numerous  cross-effects  in  nature,  seeming  to 
show  cross-purposes : — e.  g.  one  set  of  causes  educes  a  fruit- 
ful crop :  when  it  is  just  about  to  gladden  the  reaper,  it  is 
beaten  into  the  mire  by  hail,  through  another  set  of  at- 
mospheric causes.  Everywhere  poisons  are  set  against  food, 
evil   against   good,    death    against    life.     Are    there    not    two 


42  ■  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

antagonist  wills  in  Nature?  Now  it  is  a  poor  reply,  es- 
pecially to  the  mind  aroused  by  the  vast  and  solemn  question 
of  the  origin  of  evil,  or  to  the  heart  wrung  by  irresistible  calam- 
ity, to  say  with  Paley,  that  we  see  similarity  of  contrivance  in 
all  natnre.  Two  hostile  kings  may  wage  internecine  war,  by 
precisely  the  same  means  and  appliances.  The  true  answer  is, 
that,  question  nature  as  we  may,  through  all  her  kingdoms, 
animal,  inorganic,  celestial,  from  the  minutest  disclosures 
of  the  microscope,  up  to  the  grandest  revelations  of  the 
telescope,  second  causes  are  all  inter-dependent ;  and  the  designs 
convergent  so  far  as  comprehended,  so  that  each  effect  depends, 
more  or  less  directly,  on  all  the  others.  Thus,  in  the  first 
instance :  The  genial  showers  and  suns  gave,  and  the  hail 
destroyed,  the  grain.  But  look  deeper :  They  are  all  parts  of 
one  and  the  same  meteorologic  system.  The  same  cause 
exhaled  the  vapour  which  made  the  genial  rain  and  the  ruthless 
hail.  Nay,  more ;  the  pneumatic  currents  which  precipitated 
the  hail,  were  constituent  parts  of  a  system  which,  at  the  same 
moment,  were  doing  somewhere  a  work  of  blessing.  Nature  is 
one  machine,  moved  by  one  mind.  Should  you  see  a  great 
mill,  at  one  place  delivering  its  meal  to  the  suffering  poor,  and 
at  another  crushing  a  sportive  child  between  its  iron  wheels :  it 
would  be  hasty  to  say,  "Surely,  these  must  be  deeds  of  opposite 
agents."  For,  on  searching,  you  find  that  there  is  but  one 
water-wheel,  and  not  a  single  smaller  part  which  does  not  inos- 
culate, nearly  or  remotely,  with  that.  This  instance  suggests 
also,  that  dualism  is  an  inapplicable  hypothesis.  Is  Ormusd 
stronger  than  Ahriman  ?  Then  he  will  be  victor.  Are  both 
equal  in  power?  Then  the  one  would  not  allow  the  other  to 
work  with  his  machinery ;  and  the  true  result,  instead  of  being 
a  mixture  of  cross-effects,  would  be  a  sort  of  "dead  lock"  of 
the  wheels  of  nature. 

We  only  know  substance  by  its  properties ;  but  our  reason 
intuitively  compels  us  to  refer  the  properties 
3.     oc  a  .pin  .  known  to  a  sJtbjecUim,  a  substratum  of  true 

being,  or  substantia.  We  thus  know,  first,  spiritual  substance,  as 
that  which  is  conscious,  thinks,  feels,  and  wills  ;  and  then  material 
substance,  as  that  which  is  unconscious.thoughtless,  lifeless,  inert. 
To  all  the  latter  we  are  compelled  to  give  some  of  the  attributes 
of  extension;  to  the  former  it  is  imposible  to  ascribe  any  of  them. 
Now,  therefore,  if  this  first  Cause  is  to  be  referred  to  any  class 
of  substance  known  to  us,  itmustbe  to  one  of  these  two.  Should 
it  be  conceived  that  there  is  a  third  class,  unknown  'to  us,  to 
which  the  first  Cause  may  possibly  belong,  it  would  follow,  sup- 
posing we  had  been  compelled  to  refer  the  first  Cause  to  the  class 
of  spirits,  (as  we  shall  see  anon  that  we  must,)  that  to  this  third 
class  must  also  belong  all  creature  spirits  as  species  to  a  genus. 
For  we  know  the  attributes,  those  of  thought  and  will,  common 
between  God  and  them;  it  would  be  the  differefitia,  v/hich  would 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  43 

be  unknown.  Is  the  first  Cause,  then,  to  be  referred  to  the  class, 
spirits  ?  Yes;  because  we  find  it  possessed,  in  the  highest  possible 
degree,  of  every  one  of  the  attributes  by  which  we  recognize 
spirit.  It  thinks ;  as  we  know  by  two  signs.  It  produced  us, 
who  think;  and  there  cannot  be  more  in  the  effect  than  was  in 
the  cause.  It  has  filled  the  universe  with  contrivances,  the  re- 
sults of  thought.  It  chooses;  for  this  selection  of  contrivances 
implies  choice.  And  again,  whence  do  creatures  derive  the 
power  of  choice,  if  n6t  from  it?  It  is  the  first  Cause  of  life  ;  but 
this  is  obviously  an  attribute  of  spirit,  because  we  find  full  life 
nowhere,  except  we  see  signs  of  spirit  along  with  it.  The  first 
Cause  is  the  source  of  force  and  of  motion.  But  matter  shows 
us,  in  no  form,  any  power  to  originate  motion.  Inertia  is  its 
normal  condition.  We  shall  find  God's  power  and  presence 
penetrating  and  inhabiting  all  material  bodies;  but  matter  has  a 
displacing  power,  as  to  all  other  matter.  That  which  is  impene- 
trable obviously  is  not    ubiquitous. 

But  may  not  God  be  like  us,  matter  and  spirit  in  one  person? 
I  answer,  No.  Because  this  would  be  to  be  organized;  but  or- 
ganization can  neither  be  eternal,  nor  immutable.  Again,  if  He 
is  material,  why  is  it  that  He  is  never  cognizable  to  any  sense? 
We  know  that  He  is  all  about  us  always,  yet  never  visible,  audible, 
nor  palpable.  And  last,  He  would  no  longer  be  penetrable  to 
all  other  matter,  nor  ubiquitous. 

Divines  are  accustomed  to  assert  of  the  divine  substance 
an  absolute  simplicity.     If  by  this  it  is  meant 

subsSSce!^  "^  ^°'^''  ^^^^  ^^  ^s  uncompounded,  that  His  sub- 
stance is  ineffably  homogeneous,  that  it 
does  not  exist  by  assemblage  of  atoms,  and  is  not  discerptible, 
it  is  true.  For  all  this  is  clear  from  His  true  spirituality 
and  eternity.  We  must  conceive  of  spiritual  substance  as 
existing  thus;  because  all  the  acts,  states,  and  conscious- 
nesses of  spirits,  demand  a  simple,  uncompounded  substance. 
The  same  view  is  probably  drawn  from  His  eternity  and  inde- 
pendence. For  the  only  sort  of  construction  or  creation,, 
of  which  we  see  anything  in  our  experience,  is  that  made 
by  some  aggregation  of  parts,  or  composition  of  substance;  and 
the  only  kind  of  death  we  know  is  by  disintegration.  Hence, 
that  which  has  neither  beginning  nor  end  is  uncompounded. 

But  that  God  is  more  simple  than  finite  spirits  in  this,  that 
in  Him  substance  and  attribute  are  one  and  the  same,  as  they 
are  not  in  them,  I  know  nothing.  The  argument  is,  that  as  God 
is  immutably  what  He  is,  without  succession.  His  essence  does 
not  like  ours  pass  from  mode  to  mode  of  being,  and  from  act  to 
act,  but  is  always  all  modes,  and  exerting  all  acts;  hence  His 
modes  and  His  acts  are  Himself.  God's  thought  is  God.  He 
is  not  active,  but  activity.  I  reply,  that  if  this  means 
more  than  is  true  of  a  man's  soul,  viz;  that  its  thought  is  no 
entity,  save  the  soul  thinking;  that  its  thought,    as    abstracted 


,44  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

from  the  soul  that  thinks  it,  is  only  an  abstraction  and  not  a 
thing;  it  is  undoubtedly  false.  For  then  we  should  have  reached 
the  pantheistic  notion,  that  God  has  no  other  being  than  the  in- 
finite series  of  His  own  consciousnesses  and  acts.  Nor  would 
v/e  be  far  off  from  the  other  result  of  this  fell  theory;  that  all 
that  is,  is  God.  For  he  who  has  identified  God's  acts  thus  with 
His  being,  will  next  identifiy  the  effects  thereof,  the  existence  of 
the  creatures  therewith. 

Infinitude  means  the  absolutely  limitless  character  of  God's 
essence.     Immensity  the  absolutely  limitless 

4.  God  Immense.         ,.  rrr-  Ui.  tt-u-  l.  1 

being  01  His  substance.     His  being,  as  eternal, 

is  in  no  sense  circumscribed  by  time  ;  as  immense,  in  no  wise  cir- 
cumscribed by  space.  But  let  us  not  conceive  of  this  as  a  repletion 
of  infinite  space  by  diffusion  of  particles  :  like,  e.  g.,  an  elastic  gas 
released  in  vacuo.  The  scholdLStic  forjuula  was,  "  The  whole  sub- 
stance, in  its  whole  essence,  is  simultaneously  present  in  every 
point  of  infinite  space,  yet  without  multiplication  of  itself  This 
IS  unintelligble  ;  (but  so  is  His  immensity  :)  it  may  assist  to  ex- 
clude the  idea  of  material  extension.  God's  omnipresence  is  His 
similar  presence  in  all  the  space  of  the  universe. 

Now,  to  me,  it  is  no  proof  of  His  immensity  to  say,  the  ne- 
cessity of  His  nature  must  operate  everywhere,  because  absolute 
from  all  limitation.  The  inference  does  not  hold.  Nor  to  say 
that  our  minds  impel  us  to  ascribe  all  perfection  to  God;  whereas 
exclusion  from  any  space  would  be  a  limitation;  for  this  is  not 
conclusive  of  existences  without  us.  Nor  to  say,  that  God  must 
be  everywhere,  because  His  action  and  knowledge  are  every- 
where, and  these  are  but  His  essence  acting  and  knowing. 
Were  the  latter  true,  it  would  only  prove  God's  omniprcsoice. 
But  so  far  as  reason  apprehends  His  immensity,  it  seems  to  my 
mind  to  be  a  deduction  from  His  omnipresence.  The  latter  we 
deduce  from  His  simultaneous  action  and  knowledge,  every- 
where and  perpetually,  throughout  His  universe.  Now,  let  us 
not  say  that  God  is  nothing  else  than  His  acts.  Let  us  not  rely 
on  the  dogma  of  the  mediaeval  physicks:  "That  substance  cannot 
act  save  where  it  is  present."  But  God,  being  the  first  Cause, 
is  the  source  of  all  force.  He  is  also  pure  spirit.  Now  we  may 
admit  that  the  sun  (by  its  attraction  of  gravitation)  may  act 
upon  parts  of  the  solar  system  removed  from  it  by  many  millions 
of  miles ;  and  that,  without  resorting  to  the  hypothesis  of 
an  elastic  ether  by  which  to  propagate  its  impulse.  It  may  be 
a.sked:  if  the  sun's  action  throughout  the  solar  system  fails  to 
prove  His  presence  throughout  it,  how  does  God's  universal  ac- 
tion prove  His  omnipresence?  The  answer  is  in  the  facts  above 
stated.  There  is  no  force  originally  inherent  in  matter. 
The  power  which  is  deposited  in  it,  must  come  from  the 
first  Cause,  and  must  work  under  His  perpetual  superintend- 
ence. His,  not  theirs,  is  the  recollection,  intelligence,  and 
purpose  which  guide.     Now,  as  we  are  conscious  that  our  Intel- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  45; 

ligence  only  acts  where  it  is  present,  and  where  it  perceives,  this 
view  of  Providence  necessarily  impels  us  to  impute  omnipres- 
ence to  this  universal  cause.  For  the  power  of  the  cause 
must  be  where  the  effect  is. 

But  now,  having  traced  His  being  up  to  the  extent 
of  the  universe,  which  is  to  us  practically  immense,  why 
limit  it  there?  Can  the  mind  avoid  the  inference  that  it  extends 
farther?  If  we  stood  on  the  boundary  of  the  universe,  and 
some  angel  should  teli  us  that  this  was  "  the  edge  of  the  divine 
substance,"  would  it  not  strike  us  as  contradictory?  Such  a 
Spirit,  already  seen  to  be  omnipresent,  has  no  bounding  out- 
line. Again,  we  see  God  doing  and  regulating  so  many  things 
over  so  vast  an  area,  and  with  such  absolute  sovereignty,  that 
we  must  believe  His  resources  and  power  are  absolute  within 
the  universe.  But  it  is  practically  boundless  to  us.  To  succeed- 
always  inside  of  it,  God  must  command  such  a  multitude  of  re- 
lations, that  we  are  practically  impelled  to  the  conclusion,  that 
there  are  no  relations,  and  nothing  to  be  related,  outside  His 
universe.  But  if  His  power  is  exclusive  of  all  other,  in  all  in- 
finite space,  we  can  scarcely  avoid  the  conclusion  that  His  sub- 
stance is  in  all  space. 

By  passing  from  one  to  another  of  God's  attributes,  and 
discovering  their  boundless  character,  we 
shall  at  last  establish  the  infinitude  of  His 
essence  or  nature.     It  is  an  induction  from  the  several  parts. 

5.  By  God's  Immutability  we  mean  that  He  is  incapable 
of  change.  As  to  His  attributes.  His  nature,  his  purposes,  He 
remains  the  same  from  eternity  to  eternity.  Creation  and 
other  acts  of  God  in  time,  imply  no  change  in  Him  ;  for  the 
purpose  to  do  these  acts  at  that  given  time  was  always  in  Him, 
just  as  when  He  effected  them.  This  attribute  follows  from  His 
necessary  existence ;  which  is  such  that  He  cannot  be  any 
other  than  just  what  He  is.  It  follows  from  his  self-existence 
and  independence;  there  being  none  to  change  Him.  It  follows 
from  His  simplicity  :  for  how  can  change  take  place,  when  there 
is  no  composition  to  be  changed?  It  follows  from  His  perfec- 
tion; for  being  infinite,  He  cannot  change  for  the  better;  and 
will  not  change  for  the  worse.  Scarcely  any  attribute  is 
more  clearly  manifested  to  the  reason  than  God's  immutability. 


LECTURE  V. 

DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Can  Reason  infer  God's  Omnipotence  ?  How?  Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  21, 
Dr.  S.  Clarke,  Prop.  loth.     Dick,  Lect.  23.     Charnock,  Discourse  x. 

2.  His  Omniscience?  How?  Turrettin,  Qu.  12.  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  Prop.  8  and  ir. 
•Dick,  Lect.  21,  22.     Charnock,  Discourse  8,  §  2. 

3.  His  Rigliteousness  ?  How?  Turrettin,  Qu.  19.  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  Prop.  12th. 
Dick,  Lect.  25.  Chalmers'  Nat.  Theology,  bk  iii,  ch.  2.  Hodge's  Theology, 
pt.  i,  ch.  5,  §  12. 

4.  His  Goodness  ?  How  ?  Turrettin,  Qu.  20.  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  as  above.  Leib- 
nitz, Theodicee  Abregee.  Chalmers'  Nat.  Theolog>-,  bk.  iv,  ch.  2.  Hodge, 
pt.  i,  ch,  V,  ^13.     Charnock,  Discourse  12. 

5.  Does    Reason   show  that  man  bears  Moral  Relations  to  God  ?     What  are 
they  ?     And  what  the  Natural  Duties  deduced  ? 

Butler's  Analogy,  pt.  i,  ch.  2  to  5.     Howe's  Living  Temple,  pt.  i,  ch.  6th.    Dr. 
S.  Clarke's  Discourse.     Vol.  ii.  Prop,  i  to  4.     Turrettin,  qu.  22. 

"\^7'HEN  we  enquire  after  God's  power  we  mean  here,   not 

his  potestas,    or    iqooa'ca,    authority,  but    His   potcntia 

or  ouvauf;.     When   we   say :    He  can'  do  all 

God  all  Powerful.         .1-1  l.  A,    i.  -lj  cc 

things,  we  do  not  mean  that  He  can  suner, 
or  be  changed,  or  be  hurt ;  for  the  passive  capacity  of  these 
things  is  not  power,  but  weakness  or  defect.  We  ascribe  to 
God  no  passive  power.  When  we  say  that  God's  power  is 
omnipotence,  we  mean  that  its  object  is  only  the  possible, 
not  the  absolutely  impossible.  Here,  however,  we  must 
again  define,  that  by  the  absolutely  impossible,  we  do  not 
mean  the  physically  impossible.  For  we  see  God  do  many 
things  above  nature,  [^'j^.'C  ;]  that  is  above  what  material,  or 
human,  or  angelic  nature  can  effect.  But  v/e  mean  the  do- 
ing of  that  which  implies  an  inevitable  contradiction.  Some,  e. 
g.  Lutherans  of  the  older  school,  say  it  is  a  derogation  from 
God's  omnipotence,  to  limit  it  by  the  inevitable  self-contradic- 
tion :  [that  He  is  able  to  confer  actual  ubiquity  on  Christ's  ma- 
terial body.]  But  we  object :  Popularly,  God's  omnipotence  may 
be  defined  as  His  ability  to  do  all  things.  Now  of  two  incompat- 
ibles,  both  cannot  become  entities  together ;  for,  by  the  terms 
of  the  case,  the  entity  of  the  one  destroys  that  of  the  other.  But 
it  they  are  not,  and  cannot  be  both  things,  the  power  of  doing 
all  things  does  not  embrace  the  doing  of  incompatibles.  But 
2nd.,  more  conclusively  ;  if  even  omnipotence  could  effect  both 
of  two  contradictories,  then  the  self-contradictory  would  become 
the  true;  which  is  impossible  for  man  to  believe.  Hence,  3d., 
the  assertion  would  infringe  the  foundation  principle  of  all  truth ; 
that  a  thing  cannot  be  thus,  and  not  thus,  in  the  same  sense,  and 
at  the  same  time. 

We  may  add,  4th,  that  power  is  that  which  produces  an 

effect ;    and   every  effect  is  a  change.     Hence  the  absolutely 

changeless  is  not  subject  to  power;    be  that  power  finite  or 

infinite.     Here  is  an  application  of  my  remark,  which  no  reflcc- 

46 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  4/ 

ting  person  will  dispute :  The  event  which  has  actually-  happened 
at  some  past  time,  is,  as  such,  irrevocable.  Even  omnipotence 
has  no  relevancy  towards  recalling  it.  So,  when  a  given  effect 
is  in  place,  the  contradictory  effect  is  as  absolutely  precluded 
from  the  same  time  and  place.  There  is  no  room  for  change  ; 
and  therefore,  no  room  for  power. 

But  between  these  limits,  we  beheve  God  is  omnipotent : 
That  is,  His  power  is  absolute  as  to  all  being.  In  proof, 
note :  He  obviously  has  great  power ;  He  has  enough  to 
produce  all  the  effects  in. the  universe.  Cause  implies  power : 
He  is  the  universal  first  Cause.  2d.  His  power  is  at  least 
equal  to  the  aggregate  of  all  the  forces  in  the  universe, 
of  every  kind ;  because  all  sprang  from  Him  at  first.  A 
mechanic  constructs  a  machine  far  stronger  than  himself;  it 
is  because  he  borrows  the  forces  of  nature.  There  was  no 
source  whence  God  could  borrow.  He  must  needs  produce 
all  those  forces  of  nature  Himself;  and  He  sustains  them. 
3d.  God  is  one,  and  all  the  rest  is  produced  by  Him;  so, 
since  all  the  forces  that  exist,  except  His  own,  depend  on 
Him,  they  cannot  limit  His  force.  Hence,  it  is  absolutely  un- 
limited, save  by  its  own  nature.  And  now,  the  exhibition  of  it 
already  made  in  creation  is  so  vast  and  varied,  embracing  (prob- 
ably) the  very  existence  of  matter,  and  certainly  its  whole  or- 
ganization, the  very  existence  of  finite  spirits,  and  all  their  at- 
tributes, and  the  government  of  the  whole,  that  this  power  is 
practically  to  us  immense.  4th.  We  have  found  God  immutable. 
Whatever  He  once  did,  He  can  do  again.  He  is  as  able  to  go 
on  making  universes  such  as  this  indefinitely,  as  to  make  this  . 
5th.  He  does  not  exist  by  sucession;  and  hence  He  is  able  to 
make  two  or  more  at  once,  as  well  as  successively.  It  is  hard 
to  conceive  how  power  can  be  more  infinite  than  this. 

Once  more,  God's  power  must  be  conceived  of  as  pri- 
marily immediate ;  i.  e.  His  simple  volition 
diatr^'^  Power  Imme-  -^  j,.g  effectuation ;  and  no  means  interpose 
between  the  will  and  the  effect.  Our  wills 
operate  on  the  whole  external  world  through  our  members  ; 
and  they,  often,  through  implements,  still  more  external. 
But  God  has  no  members ;  so  that  we  must  conceive  of 
His  will  as  producing  its  effects  on  the  objects  thereof  as 
immediately  as  our  wills  do  on  our  bodily  members.  More- 
over the  first  exertion  of  God's  power  must  have  been 
immediate  ;  for  at  first  nothing  existed  to  be  means.  God's 
immutability  assures  us  that  the  power  of  so  acting  is  not  lost  to 
Him,  The  attribution  of  such  immediate  power  to  God  does 
not  deny  that  He  also  acts  through  "second  causes." 

None  who  believe  in  God  have  ever  denied  to  Him  know- 

2.   Wisdom  Distin-    ledge  and  wisdom.     Wisdom  isthe    employ- 

guished  from  Knowl-    ment  of  things  known.  With  judicious  reference 

•edge.  to  proper  ends.     Now  God  is  Spirit :  but  to 


48  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

think,  to  know,  to  choose  are  the  very  powers  of  spirits.  The 
universe  is  full  of  beautiful  contrivances.  These  exhibit  knowl- 
edge, wisdom,  and  choice,  coextensive  with  the  aggregate  of 
the  whole. 

But  I  had  best  pause    and    explain  the    usual    distinctions 
made  in  God's  knowledge.     His  scic?itia  visi- 
God's  Knowledge  of         ■     ^^  ^-^^.^^   j^  ^Lis    knowledge  of  whatever 
two  K.inds.  .  "^ 

has    existence  before   His    view;  that    is,  of 

all  that  is,  has  been,  or  is  decreed  to  be.  His  scieutia  iiitclli- 
gentiae,  or  simplex  (uncompounded  with  any  volition)  is  His  in- 
finite conception  of  all  the  possible,  which  He  does  not  purpose 
to  effectuate.  Others  add  a  scientia  media,  which  they  suppose 
to  be  His  knowledge  of  contingent  effects  including  chiefly  the 
future  free  and  responsible  acts  of  free  agents.  They  call  it  me- 
diate, because  they  suppose  God  foreknows  these  acts  only  in- 
ferentially,  by  means  of  His  knowledge  of  their  characters  and 
circumstances.  But  Calvinists  regard  all  this  as  God's  scientia 
znsionis.  Let  us  see  whether,  in  all  these  directions,  God's 
knowledge  is  not  without  limit. 

First,  I  begin  from  the  simple  fact  that  He  is  spiritual  and 

^;«;/?/(3/^^// First  Cause.     All  being  save-  His 

^^Proved  from  God's    ^^^^  j^  ^j^^  offspring  of  His  will.     Grant  a  God, 

and  the  doctrine  of  a  providence  is  almost 
self-evident  to  the  reason.  This  refers  not  only  phenomena  of 
specific  creation,  but  all  phenomena,  to  God's  will.  If  any  thing 
or  event  has  actuality,  it  is  because  He  has  willed  it.  But  now, 
can  volition  be  conceived,  in  a  rational  spirit,  except  as  condi- 
tioned on  cognition  «  7;;zt7n  to  itself?  Hence,  1st,  a  knowledge 
is  implied  in  God,  a  priori  to  and  coextensive  with  His  whole 
purpose.  But  because  this  purpose  (that  of  universal  almighty 
First  Cause)  includes  the  whole  that  has  been,  is,  and  shall  be ; 
and  since  volition  does  not  obscure,  but  fix  the  cognition  which 
is  the  object  thereof,  God  has  a  ^r.'V;///^?  visionis,  embracing  all 
the  actual.  2nd,  Will  implies  selection:  there  must  be  more 
in  the  a  priori  cognition  than  is  in  the  volition.  Hence 
God's  sciejitia  simplex  or  knowledge  of  the  possible,  is  wider 
than  his  scientia  visionis.  This  view  will  be  found  to  have 
settled  the  question  between  us  and  Arminians,  whether  God 
purposes  the  acts  of  free  agents  because  He  has  foreseen  their 
certain  futurition,  or  whether  their  futurition  is  certain  because 
He  has  purposed  them.     Look  and  see. 

But  more  popularly;  all  God's  works  reveal  marks  of  His 

knowledge,  thought  and  wisdom.  But  these 
domTe:;fn^HSwots:    works  are  SO  vast,  SO  varied,  SO   full  of  contri- 

vance,  they  disclose  to  us  a  knowledge  prac- 
tically boundless.  His  infinite  power  implies  omniscience,  for 
"knowledge  is  power."  Certain  success  implies  full  knowledge 
of  means  and  effects.  We  saw  God  is  omnipresent;  but  He  is 
spirit.     Hence  He  knows  all  that  is  present  to  Him;  for  it  is  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  49 

nature  of  spirit  to  know.  A  parallel  argument  arises  from  God's 
providence;  (which  reason  unavoidably  infers.)  The  ends  which 
are  subserved  show  as  much  knowledge  and  wisdom  as  the 
structure  of  the  beings  used — so  that  we  see  evidence  of  com- 
plete knowledge  of  all  second  causes,  including  reasonable  agents 
and  their  acts.  For  so  intimate  is  the  connection  of  cause  with 
cause,  that  perfect  knowledge  of  the  whole  alone  can  certify  re- 
sults from  any.  Here  also  we  learn,  God's  knowledge  of  past 
and  future  is  as  perfect  as  of  present  things;  for  the  completion 
of  far-reaching  plans, -surely  evolved  from  their  remote  causes, 
implies  the  retention  by  God  of  all  the  past,  and  the  clear  anti- 
cipation of  all  the  future.  Nay,  what  ground  of  certain  futuri- 
tion  is  there,  save  that  God  purposes  it?  His  omnipotence  here 
shows  that  He  has  a  complete  foreknowledge;  because  that 
which  is  to  be  is  no  other  than  what  He  purposes.  God's  im- 
mutability proves  also  His  perfect  knowledge  of  past,  present, 
and  future.  Did  He  discover  new  things,  these  might  become 
bases  for  new  purposes,  or  occasions  of  new  volitions,  and  God 
would  no  longer  be  the  same  in  will.  God's  omniscience  is  im- 
plied also  in  all  His  moral  attributes;  for  if  He  does  not  perform 
His  acts  understandingly,  He  is  not  praiseworthy  in  them.  Last, 
our  consciences  reveal  an  intuition  of  God's  infinite  knowledg'e; 
for  our  fears  recognize  Him  as  seeing  our  most  secret,  as  well  as 
our  public  acts.  His  unfading  knowledge  of  the  past  is  espe- 
cially pointed  out  by  conscience  ;  for  whenever  she  remembers, 
she  takes  it  for  granted  that  God  does.  Thus  we  find  God's 
scientiavisionis  is  a  perfect  knowledge,  past,  present,  and  future, 
of  all  beings  and  all  their  actions,  including  those  of  moral 
agents. 

How  do  we  infer  His  knowledge  of  the  possible?  A  reason- 
able being  must  first  conceive,  in  order  to 
Inferfed.'"''^  ^"""^^"'^  produce.  He  cannot  make,  save  as  He  first 
has  his  own  idea,  to  make  by.  God  then, 
before  He  began  to  make  the  universe,  must  have  had  in  His 
mind  a  conception,  in  all  its  details,  of  whatever  He  was  to  effect- 
uate. Let  me,  in  passing,  call  your  attention  to  a  difference 
between  the  human  and  the  divine  imagination,  which  is  sug- 
gested here.  You  are  all  familiar  with  the  assertion  of  the 
psychologists,  that  our  imaginations  cauiioc  create  elements  of 
conception,  but  only  new  combinations.  The  original  elements, 
which  this  faculty  reconstructs  into  new  images,  must  first  be 
given  to  the  mind  from  without,  through  sense-perception.  Thus, 
in  human  conception,  the  thing  must  be  before  the  thought;  but 
in  God's,  the  thought  must  have  been  before  the  thing,  for  the 
obvious  reason,  that  the  thing  could  only  come  into  existence 
by  virtue  of  God's  conception  a  priori  to  any  objective  percep- 
tion. It  is  thus  demonstrable,  that  the  divine  mind  has  this 
power,  which  is  impossible  to  the  human  imagination.  Such  is 
the  difference  between  the  independent,  infinite,  and  the  depen- 
*4 


50  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

dent,  finite  spirit.  But  even  in  this  contrast,  we  see  that  the 
imagination  is  one  of  man's  noblest  faculties,  and  most  god- 
like. But,  to  return:  All  that  is  now  in  esse,  must  have  been 
thought  by  God,  while  only  in  posse,  and  before  it  existed.  How 
long  before  ?  As  God  changes  not,  it  must  have  been  from  eter- 
nity. There  then  was  a  knowledge  of  the  possible.  But  was 
that  which  is  now  actual,  the  only  possible  before  God's  thought? 
Sovereignty  implies  selection ;  and  this,  two  or  more  things 
to  chose  among.  And  unless  God  had  before  Him  the  ideas 
of  all  possible  universes,  He  may  not  have  chosen  the  one 
which,  had  He  known  more,  would  have  pleased  Hira  best;  His 
power  was  limited.  In  conclusion,  the  infaiibility  of  all  God's 
knowledge  is  implied  in  His  power.  Ordinarily,  he  chooses  to 
work  only  through  regular  second  causes.  But  causes  and  ef- 
fects are  so  linked  that  any  uncertainty  in  one  jeopardizes  all 
the  subsequent.  But  we  see  that  God  is  possessed  of  some 
way  of  effectuating  all  His  will.  Therefore  He  infahibly  knows 
all  causes  ;    but  each  effect  is  in  turn  a  cause. 

We  must  also  believe  that  God  knows  all  things  intuitively 
and  not  deductively.  A  deduction  is  a 
P.Sve.^^""''^'''''^'  ""^^  discovery.  To  discover  something  implies 
previous  imperfection  of  knowledge.  God's 
knowledge,  moreover,  is  not  successive  as  ours  is,  but  simulta- 
neous. Inference  implies  succession ;  for  conclusion  comes  af- 
ter premise. 

God's    righteousness,    as    discoverable  by    reason,    means, 
generally,  His  rectitude,  and  not  His  distrib- 

•'■   ^'^'^ '  "  '^'  utive  justice.     Is  He  a  moral  being?     Is  His 

will  regulated  by  right?  Reason  answers,  yes;  by  justice,  by 
faithfulness,  by  goodness,  by  holiness. 

First,  because  this  character  is  manifest  in  the  order  of  nature 

Rectitude  of  God  ^hich  He  has  established.  This  argument 
proven  by  Bishop  But-  Cannot  be  better  stated  than  in  the  method 
^^■■-  of  Bishop  Butler,      i.    God  is  Governor  over 

man;  as  appears  from  the  fact  that  in  a  multitude  of  cases.  He 
rewards  our  conduct  with  pleasures  and  pains.  For 
the  order  of  Nature,  whether  maintained  by  God's 
present  providence,  or  impressed  on  it  at  first  only,  is  God's  do- 
ing; its  rewards  are  His  rewarding.  2.  The  character  of  proper 
rewards,  and  especially  punishments,  appears  clearly  in  these 
traits.  They  follow  acts,  though  pleasant  in  the  doing.  They 
sometimes  tarry  long,  and  at  last  fall  violently.  After  men  have 
gone  certain  lengths,  repentance  and  reform  are  vain,  &c.  3. 
The  reward  and  penalties  of  society  go  to  confirm  the  conclu- 
sion, because  they  are  of  God's  ordaining.  Second ;  This 
God's  rule  is  moral ;  because  the  conduct  which  earns  well-being 
is  virtuous  ;  and  ill-being,  sinful.  True  remedial  processes, such 
as  repentance,  reform,  have  their  peculiar  pains  ;  but  these  are 
chargeable  rather  to  the  sin,  than  the  remedy.     True  again ;  the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  5 1 

wicked  sometimes  prosper;  but  natural  reason  cannot  but  re- 
gard this  as  an  exception,  which  future  awards  will  right.  Fur- 
ther: Society  (which  is  God's  ordinance,)  usually  rewards  virtue 
and  punishes  vice.  Love  of  approbation  is  instinctive ;  but 
God  thus  teaches  men  most  generally  to  approve  the  right.  And 
last :  How  clear  the  course  of  Nature  makes  God's  approval  of 
the  right  appear,  is  seen  in  this ;  that  all  virtuous  societies  tend 
to  self-perpetuation  in  the  long  run,  and  all  vicious  ones  to  self- 
extinction.  Third:  Life  is  full  of  instances  of  probation,  as 
seed-time  for  harvest,- youth  for  old  age,  which  indicates  that 
man  is  placed  under  a  moral  probation  here. 

But  a  most  powerful  argument  for  God's    rectitude    is  that 

presented  by  the  existence  of  conscience    in 

^°f  ^  ^r  ^''''•'^  ^''"    man.     Its  teachings  are  universal.     Do  some 

gued  from  Conscience.  .      .         .  .  °    ,        .  .         . 

deny  its  mtuitive  authority,  asserting  it  to    be 

only  a  result  of  habit  or  policy  ?  It  is  found  to  be  a  universal 
result ;  and  this  proves  that  God  has  laid  in  us  some  intentional 
foundation  for  the  result.  Now,  whatever,  the  differences  of 
moral  opinion,  the  peculiar  trait  of  conscience  is  that  it  always 
enjoins  that  which  seems  to  the  person  right.  It  may  be  disre- 
garded ;  but  the  man  must  think,  if  he  thinks  at  all,  that  in  do- 
ing so,  he  has  done  wrong.  The  act  it  condemns  may  give  pleas- 
<ure  ;  but  the  wickedness  of  the  act,  if  felt  at  all,  can  only  give 
pain.  Conscience  is  the  imperative  faculty.  Now  if  God  had 
•not  conceived  the  moral  distinction,  He  could  not  have  im- 
printed it  on  us.  But  is  His  will  governed  by  it?  Does  he  not, 
from  eternity,  know  extension  as  an  object  of  thought,  an  attri- 
bute of  matter ;  and  sin,  as  a  quality  of  the  rebel  creature  ? 
Yet  He  Himself  is  neither  extended,  nor  evil.  The  reply  is  : 
since  God  has,  from  eternit}-,  had  the  idea  of  moral  distinc- 
tion, whence  was  it  ii  derived,  save  from  His  own  perfection? 
In  what  being  illustrated,  if  not  in  Himself?  But  more,  con- 
science is  God's  imperative  in  the  human  soul.  This  is  its  pe- 
culiarity among  rational  judgments.  But  since  God  implanted 
conscience,  its  imperative  is  the  direct  expression  of  His  will, 
that  man  shall  act  righteously.  But  when  we  say,  that  every 
known  expression  of  a  being's  will  is  for  the  right,  this  is  vir- 
tually to  say  that  he  wills  always  righteously.  The  King's  char- 
acter is    disclosed  in  the  character  of  his  edicts. 

God's  truth  and  faithfulness  are  evinced  by  the  same  argu- 
ments ;  and  by  these,  in  addition.  The  structure  of  our  senses 
and  intelligence,  and  the  adaptation  of  external  nature  thereto, 
are  His  handiwork.  Now,  when  our  senses  and  understanding 
are  legitimately  used,  their  informations  are  always  found, 
so  far  as  we  have  opportunity  to  test  them,  correspondent  to 
reality.  One  sense  affirms  the  correctness  of  another.  Senses 
confirm  reasonings,  and  vice  versa.  Last,  unless  we  can  po  tu- 
late  truth  in  God,  there  is  no  truth  anywhere.  For  our  laws  of 
perception  and  thought  being  His  imprint,  if  His  truth  cannot  be 


52  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

relied  on,  their  truth  cannot,  and  universal  skepticism  is  the  result. 

"  The  world  is  full  of  the    goodness  of  the   Lord."     I  only 

^    ,,  ,          aim  to  classify  the  evidences    that  God   is  be- 

4.  God  s  Benevolence.  ^       ,  aj,»-„  11  •  /—    j- 

nevolent.      And  1st,  generally:  smce  Lrod    is 

the  original  Cause  of  all  things,  all  the  happiness  amidst  His 
works  is  of  His  doing ;  and  therefore  proves  His  benevolence. 
But  more  definitely ;  the  natures  of  all  orders  of  sentient  beings, if 
not  violated,  are  constructed,  in  the  main,  to  secure  their  appro- 
priate well-being.  Instance  the  insect,  the  fish, the  bird,  the  ox,  the 
man.  3d.  Many  things  occur  in  the  special  providence  of  God 
which  show  Him  benevolent ;  such  as  providing  remedial 
medicines,  &c.,  for  pain,  and  special  interpositions  in  danger.  4th. 
God  might,  compatibly  with  justice,  have  satisfied  Himself  with 
so  adapting  external  nature  to  man's  senses  and  mind  as  to 
make  it  minister  to  his  being  and  intelligence,  and  thus  secure 
the  true  end  of  his  existence,  without,  in  so  doing,  making  it 
pleasant  to  his  senses.  Our  food  and  drink  might  have  nour- 
ished us,  our  senses  of  sight  and  hearing  might  have  informed 
us,  without  making  food  sweet,  light  beautiful,  and  sounds  me- 
lodious to  us.  And  yet  appetite  might  have  impelled  us  to  use 
our  senses  and  take  our  food.  Such,  in  a  word,  is  God's  good- 
ness, that  He  turns  aside  to  strew  incidental  enjoyment.  The 
more  unessential  these  are  to  His  main  end,  the  stronger  the 
argument.  5th.  God  has  made  all  the  beneficent  emotions,love 
sympathy,  benevolence,  forgiveness,  delightful  in  their  exercise ; 
and  all  the  malevolent  ones,  as  resentment,  envy,  revenge,  pain- 
ful to  their  subjects  ;  thus  teaching  us  that  He  would  have  us 
propagate  happiness  and  diminish  pain.  Last :  Conscience,  which 
is  God's  imperative,  enjoins  benevolence  on  us  as  one  duty,when- 
ever  compatible  with  others.  Benevolence  is  therefore  God's 
will ;  and  doubtless.  He  who  wills  us  to  be  so,  is  benevolent 
Himself. 

No  Pagan  theist  ever  has  doubted  God's  providence.  You 
may  refer  me  to  the  noted  case  of  the  Epicureans;  they  were 
practical  atheists.  Their  notion  that  it  was  derogatory  to  the 
blessedness  and  majesty  of  the  gods  to  be  wearied  with  terres- 
tial  affairs,  betrays  in  one  word  a  false  conception  of  the  divine 
perfections.  Fatigue,  confusion,  worry,  are  the  result  of  weak- 
ness and  limitation.  To  infinite  knowledge  and  power  the  full- 
est activities  are  infinitely  easy,  and  so,  pleasurable.  Common 
sense  argues  from  the  perfection  of  God,  that  He  does  uphold 
and  direct  all  things  by  His  Providence.  His  wisdom  and  power 
enable  Him  to  it.  His  goodness  and  justice  certainly  impel 
Him  to  it;  for  it  would  be  neither  benevolent  nor  just,  having 
brought  sentient  beings  into  existence,  to  neglect  their  welfare, 
rights  and  guilt.  God's  wisdom  will  certainly  prosecute  those 
suitable  ends  for  which  He  made  the  universe,  by  superintend- 
ing it.  To  have  made  it  without  an  object;  or,  having  one,  to 
overlook  that  object  wholly  after  the  world  was   already  made. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY  53 

would  neither  of  them  argue  a  wise  being.      The  manifest    de- 
pendence of  the  creature  confirms  the  argument. 

But  there  stands  out  the  great  fact  of  the  existence  of  much 

suffering  in  the  universe  of   God;  and  reason 
Hoi"  expSned'  "^"^    ^^ks  :  _"  If  God  is  almighty,  all-wise,  sovereign, 

why,  if  benevolent,  did  He  admit  any  suffer- 
ing in  His  world?  Has  He  not  chosen  it  because  He  is 
pleased  with  \tpet  se  ?  It  is  no  answer  to  say  :  God  makes  the  suf- 
fering the  means  of  good, and  so  chooses  it,not  for  its  own  sake,but 
for  its  results.  If  He  is  omnipotent  and  all-wise,  He  could  have  pro- 
duced the  same  quantum  of  good  by  other  means,  leaving  out 
the  suffering.  Is  it  replied :  No,  that  the  virtues  of  sympathy, 
forgiveness,  patience,  submission,  could  have  had  no  existence 
unless  suffering  existed  ?  I  reply  that  then  their  absence  would 
have  been  no  blemish  or  lack  in  the  creature's  character. 
It  is  only  because  there  is  suffering,  that  sympathy  therewith  is 
valuable.  Suppose  it  be  said  again  :  "  All  physical  evil  is  the 
just  penalty  of  moral  evil,"  and  so  necessitated  by  God's  jus- 
tice ?  The  great  difficulty  is  only  pushed  one  step  farther  back. 
For,  while  it  is  true,  sin  being  admitted,  punishment  ought  to 
follow,  the  question  returns  :  Why  did  the  Almighty  permit  sin,  w 
unless  He  be  defective  in  holiness  as  in  benevolence  ?  It  is  no  tlie- 
^^zVf^  to  say  that  God  cannot  always  exclude  sin,  without  infring- 
ing free-agency ;  for  I  prove,  despite  all  Pelagians,  from  Celes-  \ 
tius  downwards,  that  God  can  do  it,  by  His  pledge  to  render 
elect  angels  and  men  indefectible  for  ever.  Does  God  then  choose 
sin  ?  This  is  the  mighty  question,  where  a  theodicee  has  been  so 
often  attempted  in  vain.  The  most  plausible  theory  is  that  of 
the  optimist ;  that  God  saw  this  actual  universe,  though  involv- 
ing evil,  is  on  the  whole  the  most  beneficent  universe,  which 
was  possible  in  the  nature  of  things.  For  they  argue,  in  sup- 
*port  of  that  proposition  :  God  being  infinitely  good  and  wise, 
cannot  will  to  bring  out  of  posse  into  esse^  a  universe  which  is 
on  the  whole,  less  beneficent  than  any  possible  universe.  The 
obvious  objections  to  this  Beltisdc  scheme  are  two.  It  assumes 
without  warrant,  that  the  greatest  natural  good  of  creation  is 
God's  highest  end  in  creating  and  governing  the  universe.  We 
shall  see,  later  in  this  course,  how  this  assumption  discloses 
itself  as  a  grave  error;  and  in  the  hands  of  the  followers  of 
Leibnitz  and  the  optimists,  vitiates  their  whole  theory  of  morals 
and  their  doctrine  of  atonement.  The  other  objection  is,  that  it 
limits  the  power  o.f  God.  Being  infinite.  He  could  have  made 
a  universe  including  a  quantum  of  happiness  equal  to  that  in 
our  universe,  and  exclusive  of  our  evils. 

But  there  is  a  more  legitimate  and  defensible  hypothesis.  It 

is  not  competent  to  us  to  say  that  the  benefi- 
_  Optimist  Theory  Mod-  ^^^^^  ^^    j.^^^^^  j^^  ^^  ^^  ^^^^t  tO    be,     God's 

chief    ultimate    end   in  creation  and   provi- 
dence.    It  is  one  of   His  worthy  ends  ;  this  is  all  we   should  as- 


54  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sert.  But  may  we  not  assume  that  doubtless  there  is  a  set  of 
ends,  (no  man  may  presume  to  say  what  all  the  parts  of  that 
collective  end  are,)  which  God  eternally  sees  to  be  the  proper- 
est  ends  of  His  creation  and  providence  ?  I  think  we  safely 
may.  Doubtless  those  ends  are  just  such  as  they  ought  to  be, 
with  reference  to  all  God's  perfections  ;  and  the  proper  infer- 
ence from  those  perfections  is,  that  He  is  producing  just  such  a 
universe,  in  its  structure  and  management,  as  will,  on  the  whole, 
most  perfectly  subserve  that  set  of  ends.  In  this  sense,  and  no 
other,  1  am  an  optimist.  But  now,  let  us  make  this  all-important 
remark  :  When  the  question  is  raised,  whether  a  God  of  infinite 
power  can  be  benevolent  in  permitting  natural,  and  holy  in  per- 
mitting moral  evil,  in  His  universe,  the  burden  of  proving  the 
negative  rests  on  the  doubter.  We  who  hold  the  affirmative 
are  entitled  to  the  presumption,  because  the  contrivances  of 
creation  and  providence  are  beneficent  so  far  as  we  comprehend 
them.  Even  the  ph)-sical  and  moral  evils  in  the  universe  are  ob- 
viously so  overruled,  as  to  bring  good  out  of  evil.  (Here  is  the 
proper  value  in  the  argument,  of  the  instances  urged  by  the  op- 
timist:  that  suffering  makes  occasion  for  fortitude  and  sympathy, 
&c,,  &c.;  and  that  even  man's  apostacy  made  way  for  the  glories 
of  Redemption.)  The  conclusion  from  all  these  beautiful  in- 
stances is,  that  so  far  as  finite  minds  can  follow  them,  even  the 
evils  tend  towards  the  good.  Hence,  the  presumptive  proba- 
bility is  in  favor  of  a  solution  of  the  mystery',  consistent  with 
the  infinite  perfections  of  God.  To  sustain  that  presumption 
against  the  impugner,  we  have  only  to  make  the  hypothesis,  that 
(  for  reasons  we  cannot  see,  God  saw  it  was  not  possible  to  sepa- 
C  rate  the  existing  evils  from  that  system  which,  as  a  whole,  satis- 
fied His  own  properest  ends.  Now  let  the  skeptic  disprove  that 
hypothesis  !  To  do  so,  he  must  have  omniscience.  Do  you  say, 
I  cannot  demonbtrate  it  ?  Very  true;  for  neither  am  I  omniscient  • 
But  I  have  proved  that  the  reasonable  presumption  is  in  favor 
of  the  hypothesis ;  that  it  may  be  true,  although  we  cannot  ex- 
plain how  it  comes    to  be  true. 

If  the  existence  and  moral  perfections  of  God  be  admitted, 

no  one  will  dispute  that  man  bears  moral  re- 
God.  ^^''"''  ^"^'^'  *°  latio"s  to  Him.     This   appears    very  simply 

from  the  fact  that  man  is  a  moral  being  related 
to  God  as  his  Maker  and  providential  Ruler.  It  is  also  inferri- 
ble from  the  marks  of  a  probation,  and  a  moral  rule  appearing 
in  the  course  of  nature.  And  it  is  emphatically  pronounced  by 
the  native  supremacy  of  conscience,  commanding  us  to  obey. 
Rational  Deists  as  well  as  Natural  Theologians  have  attempted 
to  deduce  the  duties  man  owes  his  Creator.  They  are  usually 
(on  grounds  sufficiently  obvious)  summed  up  as:  i.  Love,  with 
reverence  and  gratitude;  2.  Obedience;  3.  Penitence;  4.  Wor- 
ship. The  rule  of  obedience,  is,  of  course,  in  natural  religion, 
the  law  of  nature  in  the  conscience. 


LECTURE  VI. 

MATERIALISM. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What   use  is   attempted,   of  the  physical   doctrine   of  the   "Correlation   of 
Forces,"  by  recent  Materialists? 

2.  State  and  refute  the  theory  which  seeks  to  identify  animal  hfe  with  vegetable, 
in  protoplasm. 

3.  Show   the   connection   between    Materialism    and   Atheism ;    and  the  moral 
results  of  the  latter.     See,  " 

Hodge's  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  i,  pp.  246  to  299.  Turrettin  Locus  v.  Qu. 
14th.  Lay  Sennons  of  Dr.  Th.  Huxley.  Dr.  Stirling  on  "  Physical  Basis  of 
Life."     Dr.  Thomas  Brown,  Lectures,  96th. 

TjR.  Thomas  Brown,  in  his  Lectures,  very  properly    remarks, 
that  the  question  of  man's  immortahty  is  involved  with  that 

of  the  immateriality  of  his  soul.     There  is,  in- 
fnv^WesTmmoS^^   deed,  a  small  class  of  materialists,  who  might 

hold  man's  immortality,  without  contradicting 
themselves.  It  is  that  which,  like  Thomas  Jefferson,  believed 
that  the  soul,  while  distinct  from  the  body,  and  an  independent, 
personal  substance  and  monad,  is  some  refined  species  of  matter. 
They  are  willing  to  recognize  only  one  kind  of  substance.  But 
modern  materialists  usually  deny  that  there  is  any  such  separate 
substance  as  soul.  They  regard  its  functions,  whether  of  intelli- 
gence, feeling,  or  volition,  as  all  results  of  some  organization  of 
matter.  They  consequently  believe,  that  when  dissolution  separ- 
ates the  body  into  its  elements,  what  men  call  the  soul  is  as  ab- 
solutely obliterated,  as  is  the  colour  or  fragrance  or  form  of  a 
rose,  when  its  substance  has  mouldered  into  dust.  We  utterly 
deny  both  forms  ot  materialism.  My  purpose  at  this  time  is  to 
consider  a  class  of  arguments,  now  again  current,  which  may  be 
called  the  physical  arguments,  upon  the  nature  of  life  and  spirit. 
The  psychological  arguments,  if  I  may  so  term  them,  will  be 
presented  afterwards. 

We  have  seen  how  evolutionists  seek    to   identifiy    human, 

with  animal  life;  by  supposing  man    to    have 
Does  Correlation  of   been  slowly    evolved    even    from   the   lowest 

b  orces  prove  Soul  a^  r        •        ,      1  .  -rr  .-i  r 

Force  only?  torm  oi  animated  creatures.     If  the  successor 

this  be  granted,  then  only  one  more  step  will 
remain.  This  will  be  to  identify  animal,  with  vegetable  life. 
Thus,  all  evidence  of  any  separate  substance  of  life,  {aninia) 
will  be  removed.  This  last  step,  Dr.  Huxley,  for  instance, 
undertakes  to  supply,  in  his  Physical  Basis  of  Life,  Before  we 
proceed  to  state  this  theory,  however,  the  way  must  be  prepared, 
by  exposing  the  use  attempted  to  be  made  of  the  modern  physi- 
cal doctrine  of  the  "correlation  of  forces." 

Sound  reflection  would  seem  to  indicate,  that  when  a  given 
physical  force  appears,  it  does  not  rise  ex  niliilo,  and  does  not 
suffer  annihilation  when  it  seems  to  end.     It  is  transmuted    into 

55 


56  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

some  other  form  of  force.  Thus:  in  the  boiler  of  a  steam-en- 
gine, so  many  degrees  of  caloric  absorbed  into  a  given  v^olume  of 
water,  evolve  so  many  pounds'  weight  of  lifting  force.  In  like 
manner,  it  is  now  supposed  that  light,  heat,  electricity,  chemical 
affinity,  are  all  correlated.  If  we  knew  enough  of  physics,  it  is 
supposed  we  should  find,  that  one  of  these  forces  might  always 
be  measured  in  terms  of  the  others.  When  one  of  them  s  eems 
to  disappear,  it  is  because  it  is  transmuted  into  some  other. 
The  doctrine,  in  this  sense,  is  held  by  many  Christian  physicists  : 
and  in  this  form,  Theology  has  nothing  to  do  with  it  either  for 
denial  or  affirmation.  But  recent  materialists  catch  at  it  for  an 
anti-theological  use.  They  would  have  us  infer  from  it,  that  all 
physical  causes  are  identical.  Then,  say  they,  this  analogy 
should  lead  us  to  conclude  the  same  of  what  have  hitherto  been 
called  vital  causes;  that  in  short,  there  is  but  one  cause  in  Nature, 
and  that  is  of  the  nature  of  force ;  while  all  effects  are  accord- 
ingly of  the  nature  of  material  motion.  Thus,  the  converging 
lines  of  science,  say  they,  point  to  a  central  Force,  as  the  only 
God,  which  the  rational  man  will  accept.  All  the  universe  is 
the  one  substance  (if  it  be  a  substance)  matter.  And  all  effects 
are  forms  of  material  motion,  molecular  or  in  masses. 

It  is  obvious  that  this  is  at  best,  but   a   vague    speculation. 

I  deny  that  its  basis  in    physical  science   has 

to^^rcoidatS''''^'^    been  solidly  settled,  even  could  we  grant  that 

the  use  made  of  that    basis    was    not    utterly 

licentious.      Has  the  force  of  gravity   been   yet    correlated   with 

heat,  light  and  electricity?    It  seems  fatal  to  such  an    idea,    that 

a  mass  still  has  the  same  gravity,  while  its  calorific  and  electrical 

conditions  are  most  violently  changed  !     It  may  well  be  doubted, 

whether  the  force  of  mechanical  adhesion  between  the  atoms  of 

homogeneous  solids,  is  identical  with  chemical  affinity,  or  with 

electricity,  or  heat. 

The  latter  diminishes  the  atomic  adhesion  of  solid  iron,  or 
gold,  reducing  it  to  a  liquid?  But  at  the  same  time  it  increases 
the  cohesion  of  clay. 

Again:  That  this  hypothesis  in  its  extreme  form,  is  by  no 
means  proved,  appears  from  the  ease  with  which  a  counter-hypo- 
thesis may  be  advanced,  which  physicists  are  not  able  absolutely 
to  exclude.  Let  it  be  supposed  that  material  forces  are  perma- 
nent properties  of  the  different  kinds  of  matter  in  which  they 
severally  inhere.  Let  it  be  supposed  that  these  forces  are  truly 
distinct  from  each  other,  and  intrinsically  ever  present,  in  the 
sense  of  being  always  ready  to  act.  Then,  all  that  is  needed  to 
cause  the  action  of  a  Sfiven  force,  is  to  release  it  from  the  coun- 
ter-action  of  some  other  force;  which  has  hitherto  counterpoised 
it,  thus  producing  for  the  time,  a  non-action  which  appeared  to 
be  rest.  Then,  every  physical  effect  would  be  the  result  of  a 
concurrence  of  two  or  more  forces;  and  each  force  would  for- 
ever  maintain  intrinsically,  its  distinct  integrity.     This  h}'poth- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  57 

esis  has  very  plausible  supports  in  a  number  of  physical  facts; 
and  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  metaphysics  of  causation. 
But,  not  to  intrude  into  physics:  we  might  grant  the  identity  of 
these  forces  of  dead  matter,  and  yet  deny  that  they  are  correlat- 
ed to  vitality.  No  one  has  ever  succeeded  in  transmuting  any 
of  them  into  vital  causation,  nor  in  measuring  vitality  in  the 
terms  of  any  of  these  forces.  To  say  that  all  thought  and  voli- 
tion are  attended  by  muscular  contractions,  and  oscillations  of 
the  nerve-matter  of  the  brain,  is  very  far  from  showing  that  they 
constitute  them.  Let  it  be  proved  that  the  nerve-force  in  a  hu- 
man muscle  is  electrical.  Let  it  be  observed  that  surprise, 
shame,  fear,  or  muscular  exertion,  stimulate  the  animal  heat,  and 
that  the  caloric  in  a  blush  upon  the  cheek  of  youth  is  as  literally 
caloric  as  that  in  the  boiler  of  a  steam-engine.  To  what  does 
all  this  come?  Who  or  w^hat  uses  these  modifications  of  organs? 
The  living  spirit.  This  muscular  action  is  quiescent  at  one  time, 
active  at  another,  at  the  bidding  of  spirit.  The  eyes  and  ears 
may  carry  to  that  spirit  the  objective  sensations  which  are  the 
occasions  of  emotion;  but  the  emotion  is  always  from  within. 
Let  the  state  of  the  living  spirit  be  changed  :  and  the  occasional 
cause  has  no  more  power  to  raise  the  glow  of  hot  blood,  -or  to 
nerve  the  arm,  than  in  a  stone.  As  a  Christian  writer  has  well 
replied:  the  attempt  to  identify  vital,  or  spiritual  causation  with 
material  forces  would  be  exploded  by  this  one  instance.  Let 
opprobrious  words  be  addressed  to  a  plain  Briton  in  the  French 
language:  and  no  pulse  is  quickened,  no  nerve  becomes  tense. 
Now  translate  the  insult  into  English:  at  once  his  cheek  burns, 
and  his  arm  is  nerved  to  strike.  Why  this?  The  French  words 
were  as  audible  as  the  English,  they  vibrated  to  the  same  degree 
upon  the  auditory  nerves.  But  to  the  spirit  of  the  Briton,  there 
was  no  meaning.  A  mere  idea  has  made  all  this  difference. 
The  cause  is  solely  in  a  mental  modification,  of  which  the 
material  phenomenon  was  merely  occasion.  Tyndal  himself 
confesses  that  this  argument  of  the  materialists  is  naught :  that 
though  they  had  proved  all  they  profess  to  prove,  there  is  an 
unbridged  chasm  between  force  and  life. 

For,  in  the  next  place,  physical  force  and  vital  causation 
are  heterogeneous.  The  former,  in  all  its 
geneous!^''''^^  Hetero-  p^^ggg^  jg  unintelligent,  involuntary,  measu- 
rable by  weight  and  velocity,  and  quantity 
of  matter  affected,  producing  motion,  mechanical  or  molecular, 
and  tending  to  eqiiilibrhmi.  All  animal  life  has  some  species  of 
spontaneity.  Spirit,  as  a  cause,  has  the  unique  attribute  of 
free-agenc}%  the  opposite  of  inertia,  self-active,  directive.  Mind 
and  its  modifications  cannot  be  measured  in  any  physical  terms 
or  quantities ;  and  hence  they  cannot  be  correlated.  Volition 
controls  or  directs  force ;  is  not  transmuted  into  it.  If  we  de- 
scend to  the  lowest  forms  of  animal  vitality,  we  still  find  a  gulf 
between  it  and  dead  matter,  which  science  never  has  passed 


58  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

over.  No  man  has  ever  educed  life,  without  the  use  of  a  germ- 
inal vital  cause.  This  vital  cause,  again,  resists  the  material 
forces.  When  it  departs,  caloric  and  chemical  affinities  resume 
their  sway  over  the  matter  of  the  body  lately  living,  as  over 
any  similar  matter;  but  as  long  as  the  vital  cause  is  present,  it 
is  directly  antagonistic  to  them. 

Huxley,  who  himself  admits  that  there  is  no  genesis  of  life 
from  dead  matter,  yet  very  inconsistently  at- 
BaslsofLife?  ^^'"^^^  tempts  to  find  a  physical  basis  of  life,  common 
to  animals  and  plants,  in  a  substance  whose 
molecules  are  chemically  organized,  which  he  calls  protoplasm. 
He  asserts  that  this,  however  varied,  always  exhibits  a  three- 
fold unity,  oi  faculty,  oi  form  and  of  substance,  ist.  The  fac- 
ulties are  alike  in  all;  contractility,  alimentation,  and  reproduc- 
tion. All  vegetable  things  are  sensitive  plants,  if  we  knew 
them !  and  the  difference  of  these  functions  in  the  lowest  plant 
and  highest  animal,  is  only  one  of  degree  !  2nd,  Protoplasm 
is  everywhere  identical  in  molecular  form.  And,  3d.  Its  sub- 
stance is  always  oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen  and  carbon.  The 
fate,  then,  of  all  protoplasm  is  death :  that  is,  dissolution  into 
its  four  elements;  and  its  origin  is  the  chemical  union  of  the 
same.  Does  the  compound  display  properties  very  different 
from  the  elements  ?  So  has  water  properties  very  unlike  the 
mixture  of  two  volumes  of  oxygen  and  hydrogen  gas.  Yet, 
the  electric  spark  flashed  through  them  awakens  the  chemical 
affinity,  which  makes  water.  So,  a  little  speck  of  pre-existing 
protoplasm  causes  these  dead  elements  to  arrange  themselves 
into  new  protoplasm.  There  is,  then,  no  more  cause  to  assume 
in  the  living  organism,  a  new  and  mysterious  cause,  above  that 
of  chemical  affinity,  and  to  name  it  vitality !  than  in  the  other 
case,  an  imaginary  property  of  'aquosity.'  And,  as  a  certain 
chemical  aggregation  of  the  four  elements  is  protoplasm,  the 
basis  of  all  life  ;  so  the  higher  vital  functions,  including  those  of 
mind,  must  be  explained  by  the  same  force,  acting  in  a  more 
complicated  way. 

For  the  facts  which  explode  this  theory,  we  are,  of  course, 
.  dependent  on  physiologists.     The  most  ex- 

cept'tlfeTen.  perienced  of  them,  then,  declare  that  the  most 

rudimental  vitalized  organism  which  the  mi- 
croscope discloses,  is  not  Dr.  Huxley's  protoplasm,  but  a  living 
tissue  cell,  with  its  vital  power  of  nutrition  and  reproduction. 
That  all  protoplasm,  or  Ywm^  protein,  is  not  alike  in  form,  nor 
in  constituent  elements ;  and  so  marked  is  this,  that  microscop- 
ists  know  the  different  sources  of  these  varieties  of  protein,  by 
their  appearance.  That  different  vitalities  construct  different 
forms  of  protein  out  of  the  same  elements.  That  some  forms 
are  utterly  incapable  of  being  nourished  by  some  other  forms ; 
which  should  not  be  the  case,  were  all  protoplasm  the  same. 
That  while  vegetable  vitality  can  assimilate  dead  matter,  animal 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  59. 

vitality  can  only  assimilate  matter  which  has  been  prepared  for 
it  it  by  vegetable  (or  animal)  vitality.  And,  that  all  protojDlasm 
is  not  endowed  with  contractility ;  so  that  the  pretended  basis 
for  animal  motion  does  not  exist  in  it. 

The  seemingly  plausible  point  in  this  chemical  theory  of 
life  is  the  attempted  parallel  between  the 
by'^cL".^al^XTy!'  P/^duction  of  Water  and  of  protoplasm. 
Asks  Huxley  :  "  Why  postulate  an  imagin- 
ary cause,  'vitality,'  in  this  case,  rather  than  'aquosity,'  over 
and  above  chemical  .affinity,  in  the  other?"  The  answer  is, 
that  this  analogy  is  false,  both  as  to  the  causes  and  the  effects, 
in  the  two  cases.  In  the  production  of  water  from  the  two 
gases,  the  occasion  is  the  electrical  spark ;  the  real,  efficient 
cause  is  the  affinity  of  the  oxygen  for  the  hydrogen.  In  the 
reproduction  of  living  tissue,  the  efficient  cause  is  a  portion  of 
preexisting  living  tissue,  present,  of  the  same  kind.  The  proof 
is,  that  if  this  be  absent,  all  the  chemical  affinities  and  electri- 
cal currents  in  the  world  are  vain.  The  elements  of  a  living 
tissue  are  held  together,  not  by  chemical  affinities,  but  by  a 
cause  heterogeneous  thereto,  yea,  adverse ;  the  departure  of 
which  is  the  signal  for  those  affinities  to  begin  their  action ; 
which  action  is  to  break  up  the  tissue.  As  to  the  effects  in  the 
two  cases  :  In  the  production  of  water,  the  electric  spark  is 
the  occasion  for  releasing  the  action  of  an  affinity,  which  pro- 
duces a  compound  substance.  In  the  case  of  the  living  organ- 
ism, there  is  an  effect  additional  to  composition :  This  is  life. 
Here,  I  repeat,  is  an  effect  wholly  in  excess  of  the  other  case, 
which  affinity  cannot  imitate.  Protoplasm  dead,  and  subject  to 
the  decomposing  action  of  affinities  (as  water  is  of  the  metals) 
is  the  true  analogue  of  water. 

But  this  theory  has  another  defect,  the  fatal  nature  of  which 
--   .^     .        Huxley  himself  has  pointed  out:  the  defect 

Has  no  Ventication.         ^  ;      ,  .^        .   ^  ,,  , 

01    actual   verification.      JNo    man    has    ever 

communicated  life  to  dead,  compounded  matter.  Let  the  ma- 
terialist make  a  living  animal  in  his  chemical  laboratory;  then 
only  will  his  hypothesis  begin  to  rise  out  of  the  region  of  mere 
dreams.  There  are,  in  fact,  four  spheres  or  worlds  of  creature 
existence,  the  inorganic,  or  mineral,  the  vegetable,  the  animal 
and  the  human,  or  spiritual.  Notwithstanding  analogies  be- 
tween them  (which  are  just  what  reason  expects  between  the 
different  works  of  the  same  divine  Architect)  they  are  separa- 
ted by  inexorable  bounds.  No  man  has  ever  changed  mineral 
matter  into  a  vegetable  structure,  without  the  agency  of  a  pre- 
existent  living  germ  ;  nor  vegetable  matter  into  animal,  without 
•a  similar  animal  germ  ;  nor  animal  into  spiritual,  save  by  the 
agency  of  the  birth  of  a  rational  soul.  The  scientific,  as  much 
as  the  theological  conclusion,  is:  That  there  is  in  vegetable 
structures,  a  distinct,  permanent  cause,  additional  to  those  which 
combine  mineral  bodies ;  that  there  is  another  in  the  animal,. 


sign. 


60  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

distinct  from  the  mineral  and  vegetable ;  and  still  another  in 
the  spiritual,  distinct  from  the  other  three.  The  inference  is  a 
posteriori,  and  bears  the  test  of  every  canon  of  sound  induction. 
This  suggests  our  next  point  of  reply.  There  is,  in  living 
tissue,  a  something  more  than  the  physical 
AH  Life  shows  De-  (3a.uses  which  organize  it :  Design.  We  have 
diverse  and  ingenious  organs,  wonderfully 
designed  for  their  different  essential  functions.  Now,  design  is 
a  thought!  Yea,  more;  intentional  adaptation  discloses  a  per- 
sonal volition.  Suppose  that  molecular  and  chemical  affinities 
could  make  "protoplasm,"  can  they  educe  design,  thought, 
wisdom,  choice  ?  Dr.  Stirling  admirably  illustrates  this  licen- 
tious assumption  of  Huxley,  (referring  still  to  Paley's  illustration 
of  a  newly  found  watch):  "  Protoplasm  breaks  up  into  carbon, 
hydrogen,  oxygen,  nitrogen  ?  True.  The  watch  breaks  up 
similarly  into  brass,  steel,  gold  and  glass.  The  loose  materials 
of  the  watch  [even  its  chemical  materials,  if  you  will]  replace 
its  weight  quite  as  accurately  as  the  constituents,  carbon,  &c., 
replace  the  weight  of  the  '  protoplasm.'  But  neither  these  nor 
those  replace  the  vanished  idea,  which  was  the  important  ele- 
ment. Mr.  Huxley  saw  no  break  in  the  series  of  steps  in 
molecular  complication  f  but,  though  not  molecular,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  understand  what  more  striking,  what  more  absolute 
break  could  be  desired,  than  the  break  into  an  idea.  It  is  of 
that  break  alone  that  we  think  in  the  watch ;  and  it  is  of  that 
break  alone  that  we  should  think,  in  the  protoplasm,  which,  far 
more  cunningly,  far  more  rationally,  constructs  a  heart,  or  an 
eye,  or  an  ear.  That  is  the  break  of  breaks ;  and  explain  it  as 
we  may,  we  shall  never  explain  it  by  molecules." 

Here,  then,  is  a  fatal  chasm  in  the  materialistic  scheme. 
It  not  only  supposes,  falsely,  that  chemical  affinities,  with  cohe- 
sion, can  account  for  living  substance ;  but  that  the  force  of 
this  'protoplasm,'  unintelligent,  blind,  involuntary,  has  exerted 
thought,  wisdom  and  rational  choice  in  selecting  ends  and 
adapted  means.  Even  if  the  powers  claimed  for  'protoplasm' 
were  granted,  still  a  Creator,  to  give  us  the  first  protoplasm 
with  which  to  start,  would  be  as  essential  as  ever.  For  the 
scientific  fact  still  remains,  that  only  living  structures  reproduce 
living  structures. 

Last :  See  these  words  of  Huxley,  ("  Lay  Sermons  "  p.  38  ): 
"  But  I  bid  you  beware  that,  in  accepting  these  conclu- 
sions" (as  to  ' protaplasm  ' )  "you  are  plac- 
■isti?^*^"^^  Material-  -^^^  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^^  ^.j^^  ^^^^  ^^^.^„  ^^  ^  ladder 
which,  in  most  people's  estimation,  is  the 
reverse  of  Jacob's,  and  leads  to  the  antipodes  of  heaven.  It 
may  seem  a  small  thing  to  admit,  that  the  dull,  vital  actions  of 
■di  fungus  or  di  fomminifer  d^re  the  properties"  (meaning  chem- 
ical and  molecular)  "  of  their  protoplasm,  and  are  the  direct 
results    of  the   nature  of  the   matter  of  which  they  are  com- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6e 

posed.  But  if,  as  I  have  endeavored  to  prove  to  you,  their 
protoplasm  is  identical  v/ith,  and  most  readily  converted  into, 
that  of  any  animal,  I  can  discover  no  logical  halting  place 
between  the  admission  that  such  is  the  case,  and  the  concession 
that  all  vital  action  may,  with  equal  propriety,  be  said  to  be 
the  result  of  the  molecular  forces  of  the  protoplasm  which 
displays  it.  And  if  so,  it  must  be  true,  in  the  same  sense,  and 
to  the  same  extent,  that  the  thoughts  to  which  I  am  now  giving 
utterance,  and  your  thoughts  regarding  them,  are  expressions 
of  molecular  in  that  matter  of  life,  which  is  the  source  of  other 
vital  phenomena." 

This  pretended  reasoning  I  present  to  you  as  a  specimen 
of  the  absurd  and  licentious  methods  by  which  the  attempt  is 
made  to  overthrow  at  once  the  almost  universal  convictions  of 
rational  men,  and  the  declarations  of  God's  word.  The  con- 
clusions I  utterly  deny,  even  if  the  premises  were  granted.  If 
it  were  proved  (which  is  not)  that  vegetable  life  was  no  more 
than  the  result  of  adhesion  and  chemical  affinit}-,  this  would 
come  wholly  short  of  the  identification  of  animal  life  with  veg- 
etable. If  rudimental  animal  life  were  identified  w4th  chem- 
ical action,  this  would  be  utterly  short  of  proving  that  mental 
action  is  identical  with  the  other  two.  The  chasm  between 
animal  and  spiritual  action,  is  as  impassable  as  ever.  As  we 
have  seen,  the  unconscious,  vegetable  organism  contains,  in  its 
adaptation  to  its  end,  a  mark  of  thought  about  it,  which  can- 
not be  overlooked.  But  now,  the  intelligent  being  has  thought 
in  it  also  ;  making  a  double  and  an  insuperable  difficulty  to  the 
materiahst.  For  thought  and  rational  choice  cannot  possibly 
be  referred  to  a  substance  extended,  inert,  passive  and  invol- 
untary. These  functions  of  spirit  are  heterogeneous  with  all 
other  forces,  not  measured  by  them,  and  not  capable  of  trans- 
mutation into  them.  But  we  are  now  upon  the  threshold  of 
the  psychological  argument  against  materialism. 

The  tendency  of  Dr.  Darwin's  speculations  is  to  obliterate 
the  distinction  between  man  and  the  brutes ;  thus  it  virtually 
makes  man  also  a  beast.  But  Huxley  would  have  us  end  by 
reducing  both  beast  and  man  to  the  level  of  the  clod.  Why 
is  it  that  any  mind  possessed  even  of  the  culture  necessary  for 
the  construction  of  these  theories,  does  not  resent  the  unspeak- 
able degradation  which  they  inflict  upon  mankind  ?  Men 
would  not  thus  outrage  their  own  natures,  without  an  inter- 
ested motive.  That  motive  probably  is,  to  be  emancipated 
from  moral  obligation  to  God,  and  to  escape  those  immortal 
responsibilities  which  remorse  foreshadows.  It  seems  a  fine 
thing  to  the  sinful  mind  to  have  no  omniscient  Master,  to  be 
released  from  the  stern  restraints  of  law,  to  be  obliged  to  no 
answer  hereafter  for  conscious  guilt.  For  if  there  is  no  spirit 
in  man,  there  is  no  valid  evidence  to  us  that  there  is  a  Spirit 
anywhere    in    the    universe.     God   and   immortality   are   both 


62  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

blotted  out  together.     But  let  us  see  whether  even  the  sinner 
has  any  motive  of  self-interest  to  say  in  his  heart :     "  There  is 
no  God;"  whether  atheism  is  not  at  least  as  horrible  as  hell. 
The   best  hope  of  materialism  is  annihilation..     This  is  a 

destiny  terrible  to  man,  even  as  he  is,  con- 
Anmliila"don^°^^  ^"'    scious  of  guilt,  and  afraid  of  his  own  future. 

Does  the  materialist  plead  that,  if  this  fate 
ends  all  happiness,  it  is  at  least  an  effectual  shield  against  all 
misery?  I  reply,  that  the  destruction  of  man's  being  is  a  true 
-evil  to  him,  just  to  the  extent  that  he  ever  experienced  or 
hoped  any  good  from  his  own  existence.  How  strong  is  the 
love  of  life?  Just  so  real  and  so  great  is  the  evil  of  extinction. 
Second :  but  for  guilt  and  fear,  a  future  immortality  would  be 
hailed  by  any  living  man  as  an  infinite  boon.  And  of  this, 
annihilation  would  rob  us.  How  base  and  vile  is  that  theory 
of  existence,  which  compels  a  rational  free-agent  to  embrace 
the  hope  of  an  infinite  loss,  solely  as  a  refuge  from  his  own 
folly  and  fault?  The  vastness  of  the  robbery  of  self  can  be 
poorly  cloaked  by  the  miserable  fact,  that  the  soul  has  so 
played  the  fool  and  traitor  to  its  own  rights,  that  it  has  com- 
pelled itself  to  seek  the  infinite  loss  of  annihilation,  rather  than 
an  alternative  still  worse! 

But   materialism   and   atheism   do   not   make  you  sure    of 

annihilation.  A  conscious  identity  continued 
able.^       ^^"^^    ^^^'"    through  so  many  stages  and  changes,  may 

continue  in  spite  of  death.  Some  material- 
ists have  devoutly  believed  in  immortality.  But  if  man  is 
immortal,  and  has  no  God,  this  itself  is  eternal  despair.  Nor 
can  any  materialistic  theory  expel  from  the  soul  those  immor- 
tal realities,  sin,  guilt,  accountalaility,  remorse,  misery:  for  they 
are  more  immediately  testified  by  our  intuitions,  than  any 
physical  fact  possibly  can  be,  which  men  attempt  to  employ  as 
a  datum  for  this  soulless  philosophy.  At  least,  when  death 
•comes,  that  "most  wise,  mighty,  and  eloquent  orator"  dispels 
the  vain  clouds  of  materialism,  and  holds  the  sinner  face  to 
face  with  these  realities,  compelling  him  to  know  them  as  solid 
as  his  own  conscious  existence.  But  now,  if  his  theory  is  true, 
there  is  no  remedy  for  these  miseries  of  the  soul.  There  is  no 
God  omnipotent  to  cleanse  and  deliver.  There  is  no  Redeemer 
in  whom  dwell  the  divine  wisdom,  power,  love  and  truth,  for 
man's  rescue.  The  blessed  Bible,  the  only  book  which  ever 
even  professed  to  tell  fallen  man  of  an  adequate  salvation,  is 
discredited.  Providence  and  grace  are  banished  out  of  the 
existence  of  helpless,  sinful  man.  There  is  no  object  to  whom 
we  can  address  prayer  in  our  extremity.  In  place  of  a  personal 
God  and  father  in  Christ,  the  fountain  and  exemplar  of  all  love 
and  beneficence,  to  whom  we  can  cry  in  prayer,  on  whom  we 
may  lean  in  our  weakness  aud  anguish,  who  is  able  and  willing 
to  heal  depravity  .and  wash  away  guilt,  who  is  suited  to  be  our 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  63 

adequate  portion  through  an  eternal  existence,  we  are  left  face 
to  face  with  this  infinite  nature,  material,  impersonal,  reason- 
less, heartless.  There  is  no  supreme,  rational  or  righteous 
government ;  and  when  the  noblest  sentiments  of  the  soul  are 
crushed  by  wrongs  so  intolerable,  that  their  perpetual  triumph 
is  felt  to  be  an  alternative  as  hateful  as  death,  there  is  not,  nor 
shall  there  ever  be,  to  all  eternity,  any  appeal  to  compensating 
justice  !  But  our  only  master  and  ruler  is  an  irresistible,  blind 
machine,  revolving  forever  by  the  law  of  a  mechanical  neces- 
sity ;  and  the  corn  between  its  upper  and  nether  millstones,  is 
this  multitude  of  living,  palpitating  human  hearts,  instinct  with 
their  priceless  hopes,  and  fears,  and  affections,  and  sensibilities, 
writhing  and  bleeding  forever  under  the  remorseless  grind. 
The  picture  is  as  black  as  hell  itself !  He  who  is  "  without 
God  in  the  world  "  is  "  without  hope."     Atheism  is  despair. 

Materialism  and  atheism  will  never  win  a  permanent  vic- 
tory over  the  human  mind  ;  the  most  they 
livid"  ^'^''"''  ^^°''"  can  do  is  to  betray  a  multitude  of  unstable 
souls  to  their  own  perdition,  by  flattering 
them  with  future  impunity  in  sin ;  and  to  visit  upon  Christen- 
dom occasional  spasms  of  anarchy  and  crime.  With  masses 
of  men,  the  latter  result  will  always  compel  these  schemes  to 
work  their  own  speedy  cure.  For,  on  their  basis,  there  can  be 
no  moral  distinction,  no  right,  no  wrong,  no  rational,  obligatory 
motive,  no  rational  end  save  immediate,  selfish  and  animal 
good,  and  no  rational  restraints  on  human  wickedness.  The 
consistent  working  of  materialism  would  turn  all  men  into 
beasts  of  prey,  and  earth  into  pandevioniiuit.  The  partial 
establishment  of  the  doctrine  immediately  produces  mischiefs 
so  intolerable,  that  human  society  refuses  to  endure  them. 
Besides  this,  the  soul  of  man  is  incapable  of  persistent  materi- 
alism and  atheism,  because  of  the  inevitable  action  of  those 
original,  constitutive  laws  of  thought  and  feeling,  which  qualify 
it  as  a  rational  spirit.  These  regulative  laws  of  thought  cannot 
be  abolished  by  any  conclusions  which  result  from  themselves, 
for  the  same  reason  that  streams  cannot  change  their  own 
fountains.  The  sentiment  of  religion  is  omnipotent  in  the  end. 
We  may  rest  in  assurance  of  its  triumph,  even  without  appeal- 
ing to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  Christianity  promises 
as  the  omnipotent  coadjutor  of  the  truth.  While  irreligious 
men  explore  the  facts  of  natural  history  for  fancied  proofs  of  a 
creation  by  evolution  which  omits  a  Creator,  the  heralds  of 
Christ  will  continue  to  lay  their  hands  upon  the  heart-strings  of 
immortal  men,  and  find  there  always  the  forces  to  overwhelm 
unbelief.  Does  the  materialist  say  that  the  divine  deals  only 
with  things  spiritual  ?  But  spiritual  consciousnesses  are  more 
stable  than  all  his  material  masses ;  than  his  primitive  granite. 
Centuries  hence,  (if  man  shall  continue  in  his  present  state  so 
long)  when  these  current  theories  of  unbelief  shall  have  been 


64  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

consigned  to  that  liinhits,  where  Polytheism,  the  Ptolemaic  as- 
tronomy, Alchemy  and  Judicial  Astrology  lie  contemned, 
Christianity  will  hold  on  its  beneficent  way. 

There  is  an  argument  ad  hoinineju,  by  which  this  discussion 
might  be  closed  with  strict  justice.  If  ma- 
eiij^of  W^kfnd*^  ^'''  terialism  is  true,  then  the  pretended  philoso- 
pher who  teaches  it  is  a  beast ;  and  all  we 
are  beasts.  Brute  animals  are  not  amenable  to  moral  law ;  and 
if  they  were,  it  is  no  murder  to  kill  a  beast.  But  beasts  act  very 
consistently  upon  certain  instincts  of  self-interest.  Even  they 
learn  something  by  experience.  But  this  teaches  us  that  the 
propagator  of  atheistic  ideas  is  doing  intolerable  mischief;  for 
just  so  far  as  they  have  prevailed,  they  have  let  loose  a  flood  of 
misery.  Now,  then,  the  teacher  of  those  ideas  is  venomous. 
The  consistent  thing  for  the  rest  of  us  animals  to  do,  who 
are  not  beasts  of  prey,  is,  to  kill  him  as  soon  as  he  shows 
his  head ;  just  as  the  deer  cut  the  rattlesnake  in  pieces  when- 
ever they  see  him,  with  the  lightning  thrusts  of  their  sharp 
hoofs.  Why  is  not  this  conclusion  perfectly  just?  The  only 
logic  which  restrains  it,  is  that  Christianity  which  says :  "  Thou 
shalt  not  kill,"  which  the  atheist  flouts.  The  only  reason  we  do 
not  treat  atheists  thus  is,  that  we  are  not  like  them,  atheists. 


LECTURE  VII. 


IMMORTALITY   OF  THE  SOUL,  AND   DEFECTS   OF 
NATURAL  RELIGION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Show  the  testimony  of  Consciousness,  Reason  and  Conscience  to  the  soul's 
spirituality.     See 

Butler's  Analogy,  pt.  i,  ch.  i,  2.  Turrettin,  Locus  v.  Qu.  14.  Hodge,  Theol. 
Vol.  i,  ch.  iii,  g  4,  E.  Dr.  S.  Clarke's  Disc.  Vol.  ii,  prop.  4.  Dr.  Thomas 
Brown,  Lee.  96,  97.  Breckinridge's  Theol.  Vol.  i,  p.  58-70.  Chalmers'  Nat. 
Theol.  bk.  iii,  ch.  3. 

2.  Does   Natural  Theology   show    the   immortality   of    the    soul  ?      See  same 
authorities. 

3.  Does  Reason  hold  out  any  sure  prospect  of  the  pardon  of  our  sins  ? 
Butler's  Analogy,  pt.  ii,  ch.  5.     University  Lectures  on  Evidences :     Dr.  Van 
Zandt.  pp.  43  to  51.     Dr.  S.  Clarke  as  above,  prop.  vi. 

4.  Can  Natural  Theology  be  sufficient  for  man's  religious  welfare?     How  much 
evidence  in  the  answer  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  ? 

Turrettin,  Locus  i,   Qu.  4.     Univ.   Lecture  by  Van  Zandt.     Chalmers'  Nat 
Theology,  bk.  v,  ch.  i.     Dr.  S.  Clarke,  as  above,  Props,  v  to  viii.     Leiand's 
"Necessity  of  Revelation,"  at  large. 

TN  advancing  to  the  solemn  question  of  our  immortality,  I 
would    remind    you    of    the  opening    remark    of    the    last 

lecture:  That  practically  this  question  is  in- 
gumentforl^rtrit!^'^''"    volved  in  that  of  the  soul's  Spirituality.     The 

attempts    made    to    infer   that    the    soul   is 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  65 

not  a  spirit,  from  certain  physical  theories,  I  there  endeavored 
to  overthrow.  The  argument  from  psychological  facts  given  us 
in  our  own  consciousness,  now  remains;  and  this  is  obvi- 
ously the  legitimate,  the  conclusive  one.  For,  let  the  supposi- 
tion that  man  has  a  separate,  immaterial  spirit,  be  once 
brought  into  the  debate ;  and  of  course,  sensuous  evidences  of 
its  truth  or  falsehood  are  equally  out  of  the  question,  by  the 
very  definition  of  spirit  as  substance  that  is  simple,  monadic, 
unextended,  indivisible,  devoid  of  all  sensible  attributes.  The 
.■spiritual  data  of  consciousness  are  the  only  ones  which  can  pos- 
sibly give  conclusive  evidence,  for  or  against  the  proposition. 
When  the  physicist  argues  that  "  science"  (meaning  thereby 
exclusively  the  science  of  sensible  phenomena)  "tells  him  noth- 
ing of  spirit,"  I  reply  :  of  course  it  does  not.  But  if  he  uses  that 
admission,  to  argue  there  is  no  spirit,  he  is  precisely  as  prepos- 
terous, as  though  he  should  wish  to  decide  the  question  whether  a 
given  crystal  vase  contams  atmosphere,  by  remarking  that  his 
eye-sight  does  not  detect  any  colour  in  the  soace  included  in  the 
vase.  Of  course  it  does  not;  when  the  very  detinition  of  atmosphere 
is,  of  a  gas  absolutely  transparent  and  colorless  in  limited 
masses.  Other  faculties  than  eye-sight  must  decide  the  question 
of  fact.  So  other  faculties  than  the  senses  must  decide  whether 
there  is  a  spirit  in  man ;  when  the  very  claim  of  our  hypothesis 
is,  that  this  spiritual  substance  is  wholly  super-sensuous.  The 
only  quarrel  we  have  with  the  physicists  for  saying  "  their 
science  tells  them  of  no  spirit,"  is  against  the  apparent  intima- 
tion that  the  science  of  sensible  things  is  the  only  science  ! 
Let  Physics  observe  their  proper  modesty,  as  only  one  branch  of 
valid  science ;  and  let  her  recognize  her  elder  sisters  of  the 
super-sensuous  sphere,  and  we  are  content  she  shall  announce 
that  result. 

The  great  evidence  of  the  soul's  spirituality  will  be  found 
when  inspected,  intuitive.  Man  only  knows  by  his  own  ideas, 
recognized  in  consciousness.  The  very  con- 
of^ph-i?"'"^''''"''^^  sciousness  of  these  implies  a  being,  a  sub- 
stance which  is  conscious.  So  that  man's 
knowledge  of  himself,  as  conscious,  thinking  substance  is  a 
priori  to,  though  implicitly  present  in,  all  his  other  thinkings  : 
That  is  to  saj/ ;  he  knows  his  own  thinking  Self  first,  and  only 
by  knowing  it,  knows  any  other  thing.  In  other  words :  Every 
sound  mind  must  accept  this  self-evident  fact ;  my  having  any 
idea,  sensitive  or  other,  implies  the  Ego  that  has  it.  I  can  onl>^ 
have  perception  of  the  objective,  by  assuming  a  priori,  the  re- 
ality of  the  subjective.  I  cannot  construe  to  myself  any  mental 
state  without  postulating  real  being,  a  subjectum,  to  which  the 
state  may  be  referred.  But  this  thinking  Self  is  impressed  from 
without  wath  certain  states,  called  sensations,  which  we  are  as 
inevitably  impelled  to  refer  to  objective  substance,  to  the  no7t 
Ego.       Now  in  comparing  this  conviction  of  the  Ego  and  no'i 

5* 


66  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

£^0,  a  certain  contrast  between  their  attributes  inevitably 
arises.  The  first  c-mviction  which  arises  out  of  a  thoughtful  in- 
spection of  the  contents  of  consciousness,  is  the  singleness  of  the 
mind.  It  learns  the  qualities  of  the  objective  by  different  sen- 
sations, but  all  sensations  are  inevitably  referred  to  the  same 
knowing  subject.  The  Self  who  knows  by  touching,  is  always 
identical  with  that  which  knows  by  tasting,  smelling,  seeing,  and 
hearing.  The  Self  who  knows  by  sensations  is  identical  with 
that  which  reflects  upon  its  sensations.  The  "Self  which  con- 
ceives an  object  of  emotion,  is  the  same  that  feels  towards  that 
object.  In  the  midst  of  the  conscious  diversity  of  all  these 
states  of  mind,  there  remains  the  inexorable  consciousness  of  the 
singleness  of  the  mind  affected  by  them.  But  the  objective  al- 
ways exists  before  us  in  plurality. 

Next,  we  learn  from  sense-perception  that  all  the  objective 
is  compounded.     The  simplest  material  substance  is  constituted 

by  an  aggregation  of  parts,  and  maybe  con- 

AndofaMonad.  •'•        ,  j^ -j    j        t-i  T    w      .     i 

ceived  as  divided.      I  he    lightest    has  some 

weight ;  the  smallest  has  some  extension ;  all  have  some  fig- 
ure. But  our  consciousness  tells  us  intuitively,  that  the  thing  in 
us  which  thinks,  feels,  wills,  is  absolutely  simple.  Not  only 
does  this  intution  refer  all  our  mental  states  and  acts 
to  one  and  the  same  thinking  subject,  notwithstanding  their 
wide  diversity.  But  zee  knozu  that  they  coexist  in  that  subject, 
without  plurality  or  partition.  We  are  conscious  that  the  agent 
which  conceives,  is  the  same  agent  which,  upon  occasion  of  that 
concept,  is  affected  with  passion.  That  which  hates  one  object 
and  loves  its  opposite,  is  the  same  agent,  nothwithstanding  the 
diversity  of  these  states.  Moreover,  every  affection  and  act  of  a 
mind  has  an  absolute  unity.  It  is  impossible  even  to  refer  any 
attribute  of  extension  to  it  in  conception.  He  who  endeavors 
to  imagine  to  himself  a  concept  that  is  colored  or  ponderous  (as 
it  is  a  mental  act)  an  affection  that  is  triangular  as  distinguished 
from  another  that  is  circular,  a  judgment  that  has  its  top  and  its 
bottom,  a  volition  which  may  be  divided  by  a  knife  or  wedge 
into  halves  and  quarters,  feels  inevitably  that  it  is  unspeakable 
folly.  All  the  attributes  of  extension  are  absolutely  irrelevant 
to  the  mind  and  its  acts  and  states.  And  especially  is  this 
thought  fatal  to  the  cohclusion,  that  mental  affections  may  be 
functions  of  organized  bodies  of  matter ;  namely  :  that  where- 
as we  know  all  our  mental  affections  have  an  absolute  unity,  we 
are  taught  by  our  senses,  that  all  qualities  and  affections  of  or- 
ganisms are  aggregates  of  similar  affections  or  qualities  of 
parts.  The  whiteness  of  a  wall  is  the  whiteness  of  a  multitude 
of  separate  points  in  the  wall.  The  magnetism  of  a  metal  rod 
is  the  aggregate  ofthe  magnetisms  of  a  multitude  of  molecules  of 
metal.  The  properties  may  be  literally  subdivided  with  the 
masses.  The  materialistic  conception  receives  a  most  complete 
.-'.-■id  exact  refutation,   when  we  recall  the  multitude  of  distinct 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6/ 

things  in  consciousness.  If  the  soul  is  material,  then  it  has 
some  dimensions  ;  less,  at  all  events  than  the  superficies  of  our 
bodies.  Recall  now,  for  instance,  the  countless  multitude  of 
ideas  marked  in  our  unconscious  memory.  How  are  they  all 
distinguishably  made  on  a  surface  of  no  more  breadth?  Re- 
member, that  if  materialism  is  true,  the  viewing  of  these  ideas  in 
conception,  is  a  sensuous  perception.  How  many  distinct  lines 
on  an  inch's  surface  can  sense  perceive  ?  That  is  settled  with  a 
geometrical  exactness !  How  then  are  these  countless  marks 
preserved  on  a  surface  of  sixty  inches  ;  or  possibly,  of  a  fraction 
of  one  inch? 

Now  the  law  of  our  reason  compels  us  to  refer  this  absolute 
contrast  of  attributes  to  a  real  difference  of  substance.  While 
Contrasted  attributes  we  name  the  Ego,  spirit,  we  must  call  the 
imply  contrasted  sub-  objective  something  else,  matter.  Man  can- 
stances.  j^Ql-  j-j-^ii-^i^  at  all,  without  virtually  pre- 
dicating his  thinking  on  the  recognition  of  a  substance  that 
thinks,  essentially  different  from  the  objective,  a  spiritual 
monad.  We  can  only  know  matter,  by  having  known  mind.  It 
is  impossible,  my  Brethren,  for  me  to  impress  you  too  strongly 
with  the  impregnable  strength  of  this  position  against  the 
materialist.  It  is  our  'Gibraltar.'  The  man  who  thinks  con- 
sistently, must  always  be  more  certain  that  there  is  mind, 
than  that  there  is  matter.  Because  any  valid  act  of  intelligence 
must  imply  an  intelligent  subject.  And  the  recognition  of  the 
Ego  which  knows,  is  a  priori,  and  in  order  to  perception  of  an 
object  known  by  it.  If  then  the  existence  of  mind  is  uncertain, 
the  existence  of  anything  objective  is  inevitably  more  uncertain. 
Does  sense-perception  seem  to  the  materialist  to  give  him  the 
most  palpable  knowledge  of  the  matter  external  to  him  ?  But 
he  has  only  been  enabled  to  construe  that  perception  at  all,  so  as 
to  make  it  a  datum  of  valid  knowledge,  by  first  crediting  the 
intuition  of  consciousness,  which  reveals  the  perceiving  Agent 
distinct  from  the  object  revealed.  How  unfair,  how  unscien- 
tific is  this  attempt  to  use  intuition  in  its  less  direct,  and  refuse 
it  in  its  more  direct,  testimonies !  If  she  is  to  be  trusted  in  her 
interpretation  of  the  objective  sensation,  she  is,  of  course,  still 
more  to  be  trusted  in  her  subjective  self-consciousness. 

Hence,  pure  idealism  is  less  unphilosophical  than  mater- 
ialism. That  outrages  one  class  of  valid  intuitions ;  this  out- 
rages two.  The  stress  of  the  argument 
nSS^y^'adm-SLg'spli-it  ^hich  I  have  just  explained,  is  disclosed  in  a 
curious  way,  by  the  confessions  of  sundry 
of  the  modern  materialists.  Huxley,  for  instance,  after 
abolishing  spirit,  finds  himself  in  such  difficulty,  that  he  feels 
compelled  to  spiritualize  matter !  Thus  his  materialism  is  re- 
solved into  a  species  of  idealism,  which  he  impotently  attempts 
to  connect  with  the  metaphysics  of  Des  Cartes.  First  we  are 
taught  that  there  is  no  such  substance  as  spirit ;  but  its  supposed 


6S  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

functions  are  merely  phenomena  of  Force,  the  only  cause  which 
materialism  can  recognize  in  nature.  And  then,  to  deliver  us 
from  the  absurdities  of  this  metaphysic,  we  are  taught  that  there 
is  no  such  substance  as  matter;  but  this  is  only  an  ideal  some- 
thing, possibility  of  force  !  Thus  reason  was  destroyed,  to  exalt 
the  validity  of  sense-perception  exclusively  ;  and  now  sense-per- 
ception is  destroyed  in  turn,  leaving  us  Nihilism. 

Next,  I  argue,  that  materialism  contradicts  our  intuition  of 
our  own  free-agency;  Experience  shows  us  two  rival  classes  of 
effects,  the^corporeal  being  one,  thought,  feel- 
feSn"'^  ''^'''''  ^^"".ig  '^"d  volition  the  other.  Now  it  is  impos- 
sible to  think  an  effect  without  an  adequate 
cause.  But  when  the  reason  begins  to  represent  to  itself  these 
causes,  it  perceives  an  inevitable  difference.  The  corporeal  ef- 
fects are  necessary ;  the  spiritual  are  free.  The  one  class  is  the 
result  of  blind  force  ;  the  other  is  an  expression  of  free-agency. 
Here  are  two  heterogeneous  causes,  matter  and  spirit,  acting 
the  one  by  force,  the  other, by  free  agency. 

Materialism  contradicts  the  testimony  of  our  moral  conscious- 
ness. It  teaches  that  matter,  if  a  cause,  is 
_^  Responsibility  refutes  ^^  involuntary  and  unintelligent  cause.  But 
lue  ktioiv  that  we  are  responsible  ;  which  un- 
avoidably implies  a  rational  spontaneity  in  acting.  To  hold  a 
blind,  material  force  to  a  moral  responsibility,  is  preposterous. 
But  this  conviction  of  responsibility  in  conscience  is  universal, 
radical,  unavoidable,  and  intuitive.  It  is  impossible  for  a  man  to 
discharge  his  mind  of  it.  He  cannot  think  the  acknowledged 
wrong  equal  to  the  right,  and  the  admitted  wrong-doer  irre- 
sponsible for  his  wrong,  like  a  rolling  stone,  a  wave,  or  a  flame. 
These  facts  of  consciousness  compel  us  to  admit  a  substance 
heterogeneous  from  matter.  Had  man  no  spirit,  there  would  be 
nothing  to  be  accountable.  Had  he  no  God,  there  would  be 
none  to  whom  to  be  accountable.  If  either  were  true,  our  very 
nature  would  be  a  lie,  and  knowledge  impossible. 

Feeble  attempts  are  made  by  modern  materialists  to  meet 
these  arguments,  by  saying  first :  That  consciousness  is  not  to 
be  trusted.  Consciousness,  say  they,  is  incomplete.  She  gives 
no  account  of  the  subjective  acts  and  states  of  infancy;  and  no 
correct  account  of  thosfe  of  the  mentally  diseased.  She  tells  us 
nothing  usually  of  the  large  latent  stores  of  memory.  She  is 
absolutely  silent  as  to  any  interaction  of  the  nerve-system  and 
the  spirit ;  of  which,  if  there  is  spirit,  there  must  be  a  great 
deal. 

But  to  what  does  all  this   amount?     Consciousness  does  not 
tell  us    all   things,   and  sometimes   tells    us 

^^ ^Consciousness  is  trust-  ^.^^^^  p       jj-  ^j^j^  ^^^^^  granted,  Still  the  Stub^ 

born  proposition  would  remain,  that  if  we 
cannot  trust  consciousness,  we  can  have  no  ideas.  The  faculty 
which  they  would  exalt  against  her,  is  sensation.     Do  the  senses 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY  69 

tell  US  all  things  ?  Are  they  never  deceived?  Does  sense  give 
any  perceptions,  save  as  it  is  mediated  to  the  understanding  by 
consciousness  ?  Enough  of  such  special  pleadings  !  That  con- 
sciousness reveals  nothing  direct  of  the  interaction  of  spirit  and 
nerve  organs  is  precisely  because  spirit  and  matter  are  causes  so 
heterogeneous — so  that  this  fact  contains  one  of  the  most  con- 
clusive proofs  against  materialism.  If  our  conscious  intelligence 
were  only  a  function  of  nerve  structures,  then  indeed  it  might  be 
very  natural  that  the  function  of  intelligence  should  include,  and 
should  represent  to  us  intellectually,  every  link  of  the  action  of 
the  material  nerve-force.  But  because  conscious  intelligence  is 
not  a  material,  organic  function,  but  is  the  free  action  of  spirit, 
a  cause  and  substance  wholly  heterogeneous  from  matter,  there- 
fore it  is,  that  just  at  the  connecting  step  between  nerve  action 
in  the  seiisoriwn  and  the  idea  in  the  intelligence,  and  between 
the  volition  in  the  rational  agent  and  contraction  in  the  volun- 
tary nerve  matter,  there  is  naturally  a  chasm  of  mystery;  a  re- 
lation which  the  omniscient  spirit  was  able  to  institute;  but 
which  sense  cannot  detect  because  the  interaction  is  no  longfer 
merely  material ;  which  conscious  intelligence  does  not  construe 
to  itself  because  it  is  not  merely  spiritual. 

Again  it  is  said  :  "Grant  that  there  must  be  an  entity  within 

as,  to  be  the  subject  of  consciousness,  why 

Consciousness  cannot  ^^^  ^j^^^  ^^  ^j^^  Brain  ?"     One  answer 

be  the  cram.  -' 

has  been  given  above  :  That  while  the  prop- 
erties and  functions  of  brain  matter  are  material,  qualified  by 
attributes  of  extension;  those  of  consciousness  are  spiritual, 
simple,  monadic.  Another  answer  is,  that  consciousness  testi- 
fies that  my  own  brain  is,  like  other  matter,  objective  to  that  in 
me  which  thinks.  How  do  I  know  that  I  have  a  brain  ?  By  the 
valid  analogy  of  the  testimony  of  anatomists,  as  to  the  skulls  of 
all  other  living  men  like  me.  But  that  testimony  is  the  witness- 
ing of  a  sense-perception,  which  that  anatomist  had  when  he 
opened  those  other  skulls — of  an  objective  knowledge.  Hence 
I  only  know  my  brain,  as  objective  to  that  which  is  the  knowing 
agent.  If  I  have  any  valid  opinion  about  the  brain,  it  is  that  this 
organ  is  the  instrument  by  which  I  think,  not  the  Ego  who  thinks. 
Materialists  have  objected  that  material  affections  have  this  one- 
ness to  our  conception ;  as  a  musical  tone,  the  numerous  series 
■of  successive  vibrations  of  a  chord  divisible  into  parts.  I  reply, 
that  the  oneness  is  only  in  the  perception  of  it.  Only  as  it  be- 
comes our  mental  affection,  does  it  assume  unity.  As  we  trace 
the  effect  from  the  vibration  of  the  chord  to  that  of  the  air,  the 
tynipammi,  the  bony  series,  the  aqueous  humour,  the  fimbrated 
nerv^e,  the  series  is  still  one  of  successive  parts.  It  is  only  when 
we  pass  from  the  material  organ  to  the  mind,  that  the  phenome- 
non is  no  longer  a  series  of  pulses,  but  a  unified  sensation.  This 
very  case  proves  most  strongly  the  unifying  power  which 
belongs  to  the  mind  alone.     So,  when   an  extended  object  pro- 


JO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

duces  a  sensation,  though  the   object  perceived  is  divisible,  the 

perception  thereof,  as  a  mental  act,  is  indivisible. 

Now,  the  soul  being  another  substance  than   the  body,  it  is 

seen  at  once,  that  the  body's  dissolution  does 
2.  The  Soul  Immortal.         .  .1      •        1       ^.u    i.       r  i-i  it 

not  necessarily  imply  that  01  the  soul.  In- 
deed, let  us  look  beyond  first  impressions,  and  we  shall  see  that 
the  presumption  is  the  other  way.  The  fact  that  we  have  already 
passed  from  one  to  another  stage  of  existence,  from  foetus  to  in- 
fant, to  child,  to  man,  implies  that  another  stage  may  await  us ; 
unless  there  be  some  such  evidence  of  the  soul's  dependence  on 
the  body  for  existence  (as  well  as  for  contact  with  the  external 
world,)  as  will  destroy  that  presumption.  But  there  is  no  such 
dependence  ;  as  appears  from  our  experience  in  amputations, 
flux  of  bodily  particles,  emaciation  under  disease,  &c.  In  none 
of  these  cases  is  the  loss  of  the  spirit  proportioned  to  the  bodily 
loss.  This  independence  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  in  sensation 
even,  the  bodily  organ  is  merely  the  soul's  instrument.  The  eye, 
e.  g.,  is  but  its  optic  glass :  that  in  sleep  the  soul  may  be  active, 
while  the  body  is  passive  ;  and  chiefly,  that  all  the  higher  pro- 
cesses of  soul,  memory,  conception,  imagination,  reasoning,  are 
wholly  independent  of  the  body.  Even  if  the  grossest  repre- 
sentationist  scheme  of  perception  and  thought,  (that,  for  in- 
stance, of  Hartly,  or  of  Hobbes,)  were  adopted,  making  the 
pliantasmata  or  species  derived  through  the  senses,  the  object 
of  perception,  still  the  question  returns,  How  does  the  soul  get 
its  conception  of  general  notions :  of  time,  of  space,  of  God,  of 
self?     Herein  surely,  it  is' independent  of  the  body. 

It  has  been  objected  to  this  great  argument  of  Bp.  Butler,  in 
Argument  true,  though  recent  days,  and  with  great  clamour,  that  the 
cerebral  action  attend  ail  discoveries   of  modern  cerebral  physiology 
thought,  discredit  it.     It  is  claimed  that  anatomists 

have  now  ascertained,  that  certain  molecular  actions  in  the  brain 
attend  what  were  before  supposed  to  be  abstract  and  independ- 
ent acts  of  mind,  (or,  as  the  materialist  would  say,  constitute 
those  acts,)  as  regularly  as  other  molecular  actions  attend  the 
sensuous  functions  of  the  mind.  The  student  will  see  this  point 
thoroughly  anticipated,  two  hundred  years  before  it  was  raised,, 
by  Turrettin,  in  the  question  cited  in  the  Syllabus.  Suppose  it 
true,  that  a  certain  excitement  of  brain-matter  attends  the  ab- 
stract processes  of  the  mind  and  the  acts  of  its  original  sponta- 
neity. Is  it  any  the  less  certain  that  in  these  cases,  the  excite- 
ment of  nerve  matter  is  consequence,  and  the  exertion  of  the 
spirit's  spontaneity  is  cause?  Surely  not.  Just  so  surely  as,  in 
objective  perception,  the  presentation  of  the  new  sense-idea  in 
the  intelligence  follows  the  excitement  of  the  nerve  matter,  in 
the  order  of  causation  ;  so  surely,  in  the  case  of  spontaneous 
thought,  feeling  and  volition,  the  spiritual  action  precedes  the 
action  of  the  nerve  matter  (if  there  is  such  action,)  in  the  order 
of  causation.     So  that,  in  the  sense  of  Bp.  Butler's  argument, 


OE  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  J\ 

these  acts  of  soul  are  independent  of  bodily  action  still.  The 
clamour  which  has  been  made  by  materialists  here,  is  a  good  in- 
stance of  modern  ignorance  or  oblivion  of  the  history  of  opin- 
ion. Suppose  the  recent  doctrine  of  the  physiological  "  cere- 
bration of  ideas"  be  proved  universal  as  to  all  the  soul's  acts, 
what  have  we,  more  than  the  hypothesis  of  Hartley,  which 
made  sensations  "vibrations,"  and  concepts  "  vibratiuncles,"  in 
a  nervous  substance  ?  No  competent  philosopher  of  the  past 
regarded  that  hypothesis,  whether  granted  or  refuted,  as  afford- 
ing any  sufficient  account  of  the  facts  of  consciousness.  But 
the  very  attempt  to  employ  the  hypothesis  thus  has  been  the 
laughing-stock  of  science. 

Here  again,  materialists   have   objected,  that  the   cases  of 
mental  imbecility  in  mfancy  and  dotage,  and 

Ply'^tre^SstoS;.'"-  Of  "^^"i^  or  l^^nacy^  seem  to  show  a  strict 
dependence  of  soul  on  body,  if  not  an  iden- 
tity. In  dotage,  is  not  the  mind,  like  the  body,  tottering  to  its 
extinction  ?  If  our  theory  of  monadic  spirit  were  true,  would 
mental  disease  be  possible  ?  I  reply,  that  strictly  speaking,  spirit 
is  not  essentially  or  organically  diseased.  It  is  the  bodily 
organ  of  its  action,  which  is  deranged,  or  weakened.  Bear  in 
mind,  that  though  there  are  undoubted  processes  of  thought 
independent  of  the  body,  sensations  form  the  larger  portion  of 
our  subjects  of  thought  and  volition.  Now,  remember  that  the 
soul  is  subject  to  the  law  of  habit ;  and  we  shall  easily  see  that 
where,  through  the  disease  of  the  bodily  organs,  the  larger  num- 
ber of  the  objects  of  its  action  are  distorted,  the  balance  of  its 
working  may  be  disturbed,  and  yet  the  soul's  substance  undis- 
eased.  That  this  is  the  correct  explanation  is  confirmed  by 
what  happens  in  dreams  ;  the  mind's  action  is  abnormal ;  it  is 
because  the  absence  of  sensations  has  changed  the  balance  of 
its  working.  Let  the  body  awake,  and  the  ordinary  current  of 
sensations  flow  aright,  and  the  mind  is  at  once  itself.  Again,  in 
lunacy  and  dotage,  ideas  gained  by  the  mind  before  the  bodily 
disease  or  decline  took  place,  are  usually  recalled  and  used  by  the 
mind  correctly  ;  while  more  recent  ones  are  either  distorted,  or 
wholly  evanescent.  Finally,  while  it  is  inconsistent  to  ascribe 
an  organic  disease  to  that  which  is  not  organized,  a  functional 
derangement  does  not  seem  wholly  out  of  the  question. 

It  appears  then,  that  the  thinking  monad  is  independent  of 
Only  death  known  is  the  body  for  its  existence.    Impressive  as  are 
dissolution.     The    soul  the  changes  of  bodily  dissolution,  they  con- 
^"^P^^-  tain  no  philosophic  ground   for  denying  the 

conclusion  drawn  from  the  experience  of  the  soul's  existence 
through  so  many  moments  and  so  many  changes.  But  the  phe- 
nomenon of  death  itself  suggests  a  powerful  analogy  to  show 
that  the  soul  will  not  die.  What  is  death  ?  It  is  but  separation 
of  parts.  When  we  examine  all  the  seemingly  destructive  pro- 
cesses of  nature,  combustion,  decomposition,  we  find  no  atom 


72  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  matter  annihilated ;  they  only  change  their  collocations. 
There  is  no  proof  that  God  ever  destroys  an  atom.  The  soul  is 
a  spiritual  atom  ;  why  suppose  it  is  destroyed  ?  The  only  death 
is  dissolution  ;  the  soul  cannot  dissolve.  And  this  is  my  con- 
ception of  its  immortality ;  not  a  self  or  necessary  existence, 
but  the  absence  of  all  intrinsic  ground  of  decay,  and  of  all  pur- 
pose in  its  Maker  to  extinguish  its  being. 

But,   objects  the  materialist :  The  same  reasonings  would 

prove  the  immortality  of  brutes.  They 
thSotnimmorS?^'  have  proccsses   of  memory,  association  and 

volition,  from  which  the  same  conclusion  of 
the  presence  in  them  of  simple,  spiritual  substance,  would  follow. 
They  might  argue  from  their  consciousness  of  mental  states,  the 
same  necessary  distinction  between  the  subject  and  object. 
They  also  have  a  species  of  spontaneity. 

I  reply,  that  this  is  an  objection  ad  ignorantiam.  Where  is 
the  necessary  absurdity,  should  it  be  that  brutes  have  spirits  ? 
It  might  contradict  many  prejudices  ;  but  I  see  not  what  prin- 
ciple of  established  truth.  If  it  is  no  just  logic  to  say,  that  our 
premises  may  or  may  not  contain  conclusions  of  an  unknown 
nature ;  when  the  question  is,  whether  they  do  not  contain  this 
known  and  unavoidable  conclusion,  the  spirituality  of  man. 
The  nature  of  the  mental  processes  of  the  higher  brutes,  espe- 
cially, is  very  mysterious.  It  seems  most  probable  that  their 
spirits  differ  from  man's  chiefly  in  these  two  traits :  the  absence 
of  all  moral  ideas  and  sentiments,  and  the  inability  to  construe 
the  contents  of  their  own  consciousness  rationally.  And  these 
two  are  the  most  essential  to  a  rational  personality.  The  moral 
arguments  for  immortality  then,  which  are  the  most  conclusive 
in  man's  case,  and  those  from  the  indefinite  perfectibility  of  his 
mental  powers,  are  all  lacking  in  the  case  of  the  brute.  What 
God  chooses  to  do  with  this  principle  in  the  brute,  which  is  the 
seat  of  instinct,  appetite,  perception,  memory,  passion,  and  per- 
haps of  judgment,  when  the  body  dies.  Natural  Theology  is 
unable  to  tell  us.  Only  when  we  come  to  Revelation,  do  we 
learn  that  "  the  spirit  of  the  brute  goeth  downward,  while  the 
spirit  of  man  goeth  upward."  Ignorance  here  is  no  argument 
against  the  results  of  positive  knowledge  elsewhere. 

The  well  known  argument  for  a  future  existence  from  God's 

righteousness,  compared  with  the  imperfect 
a  SmrlSiJe.""^""  distribution    of  awards    here,    need    not    be 

elaborated.  All  your  books  state  it.  It  is 
conclusive.  An  objection  has,  indeed,  been  urged  :  That  if  the 
awards  are  so  unequal,  no  evidence  remains  of  God's  perfect 
rectitude  ;  and  so  the  former  premise  is  lost.  I  reply :  The 
course  of  temporal  providence  is  neither  the  only,  nor  chief 
proof  of  God's  rectitude.  Conscience  demonstrates  that  attri- 
bute, without  the  light  of  observation.  Further:  while  the 
nwards  are  not  exact,  they  approximate  exactness  here,  showing 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  73 

that  it  is  God's  nature  to  be,  finally,  strictly  just.  And  last,  the 
inequalities  of  awards  are  explained  consistently  with  God's  rec- 
titude by  this  :  that  they  give  scope  for  man's  fortitude  and  sym- 
pathy, and  for  God's  long  suffering. 

Conscience,  apprehending  God's  justice,  gives   us  a  differ- 
ent  and  an  instinctive  proof  of  a  future  ex- 
oiibcience.  istence.    Remorse  for  sins  does  by  no  means 

verge  towards  its  termination,  as  death  approaches;  but  recruits 
its  fury.  If  the  soul  could  apprehend  this  life  as  its  only  exis- 
tence, at  the  conscious  approach  of  death,  remorse  would  relax 
its  grasp ;  and  at  the  expiring  breath,  would  release  the  crimi- 
nal, as  having  paid  the  debt  of  justice.  We  find  in  the  dying 
conscience  an  inevitable  and  universal  recognition  of  its  immor- 
tality. 

The   ancient,  and  some  modern,  moralists,  attached   much 

importance  to  man's   longing  for  existence, 

Does  hope  prove  It?   j^^^.^.^^  ^^  extinction,  and  hopes  in  the  future. 

I  cannot  but  feel,  with  Dr.  Brown,  that  these  lack  weight.  Is 
not  this  horror  of  extinction  resolvable  into  that  love  of  life 
which  we  share  with  the  animals?  Hope  does,  indeed,  ever  fly 
before  us,  to  the  end.  But  it  is  not  as  much  a  hope  of  sensual 
or  worldly  good,  as  of  spiritual  ?  But  should  we  infer  from 
these  premises,  that  a  brute's  or  a  man's  animal  existence  will 
be  perpetual,  we  should  err, 

I  find  a  more  solid  argument  in  man's  capacity   to  know 
Man's  spiritual  capaci-  ^nd  serve  God,  and  in  his  capacity  of  indefi- 
ties  formed  for  immor-  nite  mental  and  moral  improvement.     God's 
^^^^^y-  motive    for    creating,  must  have  been  from 

Himself;  because,  when  He  began,  nothing  else  existed  whence 
to  draw  it.  He  must,  therefore,  have  sought,  in  creation,  to 
satisfy  and  glorify  His  own  perfections.  Natural  Theology  tells 
us  of  no  rational  creatures,  save  men.  Should  there  ever  be  a 
time  when  there  are  no  rational  creatures  in  the  universe,  there 
would  be  no  recipients  of  God's  spiritual  goodness,  and  none  to 
comprehend  His  glory.  To  have  no  eyes  to  behold  the  light,  is 
virtually  to  quench  it.  Can  we  then  believe  that  the  only  crea- 
ture capable  of  knowing  and  enjoying  Him  shall  perish  so  soon 
— perish,  as  to  the  majority  of  our  race,  before  they  understand 
Him  at  all  ?  But  again,  man,  unlike  all  other  sentient  creatures, 
is  capable  of  indefinite  improvement.  The  ox,  the  elephant,  the 
horse,  soon  reaches  the  narrow  limits  of  its  mtelligence  ;  and 
these,  the  same  fixed  by  the  common  instincts  of  its  race,  for  its 
progenitors.  The  first  bee  built  its  cells  as  artistically  as  those 
of  this  "  enlightened  century."  But  man  can  make  almost  in- 
definite advancements.  And  when  he  has  taken  all  the  strides 
between  a  Newton  or  a  Washington,  and  a  naked  Australian, 
there  is  no  reason,  save  the  narrow  bounds  of  his  mortal  life,  to 
limit  his  farther  progress.  Further :  it  is  precisely  in  his  mental 
and  moral  powers,  that  the  room  for  growth  exists.     His  muscu- 


74  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

lar  strength  soon  reaches  that  standard  beyond  which  there  is 
no  usual  increase.  His  senses  are  educated  up  to  a  certain 
penetration ;  there  the  vast  and  the  minute  arrest  them.  But 
memor}%  reason,  conscience,  affections,  habits,  may  be  cultivated 
to  indefinite  grades  of  superiority.  Let  us  now  view  man's  ter- 
restrial pursuits,  his  vanity,  his  disappointments,  his  follies,  and 
the  futilities  in  which  the  existence  of  most  men  is  consumed. 
How  utterly  trivial!  How  unworthy  of  the  grand  endowment ! 
If  this  life  were  all,  well  might  we  exclaim,  with  the  Hebrew 
poet,  "  Wherefore  hast  Thou  made  all  men  in  vain  ?"  IVe  see 
that  God  is  unspeakably  wise  in  all  His  comprehended  works  ; 
we  must  conclude  that  He  has  not  expended  so  much  for  naught ; 
that  these  seeds  of  immortality  will  inherit  their  suitable  growth. 
I  see  a  man  setting  scions  in  his  nursery  a  few  inches  apart ;  but 
I  learn  that  they  are  trees  which  will  require  forty  feet  for  their 
ultimate  growth.  If  the  man  knows  what  he  is  about,  I  con- 
clude that  he  intends  to  transplant  them. 

For  these  various  reasons,  then,  we  may  look  across  the 

gulf  of  death  with  the  confident  expectation 
Reason  divines  no  bodi-  ^f  ^  f^^^^^  soiritual  existence.     I  say  spirit- 
iy  resurrection.  *■  -^     ^ 

ual ;  for  the   resurrection  of  the  body  is  a 

doctrine  of  pure  revelation,  for  which  natural  reason  presents  us 
only  the  faintest  analogies,  if  any.  It  is  the  glory  of  the  Bible, 
that  it  alone  reveals  the  immortality  of  man,  of  the  whole  united 
person,  which  lives,  hopes,  fears,  sins,  and  dies  here.  But  in 
proving  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  a  sufficient  basis  is  laid  for 
the  larger  part  of  the  moral  forces  which  bring  our  responsibility 
to  bear  aright.  The  essential  point  is  to  evince  the  proper 
identity  of  the  being  who  acts  here,  and  is  rewarded  hereafter. 
It  is  mental,  and  not  personal  identity,  which  lays  this  essential 
basis  for  responsibility.  It  is  the  spirit  which  understands, 
feels,  and  chooses,  which  recognizes  identity  in  its  conscious- 
ness.    Hence,  it  is  the  spirit  which  is  responsible. 

Now,  if  existence  is  continued  beyond  the  grave,  there  is 
Future  Existence  nothing  to  check  the  conclusion  that  it  will 
must  be  Endless,  and  be  continued  forever.  Suppose  a  soul  just 
under  Responsibility,  emerged  from  the  impressive  revolution  of 
bodily  death  ?  then  it  must  repeat  all  the  reasonings  w'e  have 
considered,  and  with  redoubled  force,  that  after  so  many 
changes  are  survived,  a  fortiori,  all  others  will  be.  But  if  man's 
conscious  existence  is  continuous  and  endless,  few  will  care  or 
dare  to  deny  that  his  moral  relations  to  God  are  so,  likewise. 
For  they  proceed  directly  from  the  mere  original  relation  of 
creature  to  Creator.  The  startling  evidences  that  this  life  is 
somehow  a  probation  for  that  endless  existence,  the  youth  of 
that  immortal  manhood,  have  been  stated  by  Bishop  Butler 
with  unrivalled  justness.  No  more  is  needed  by  the  student 
than  to  study  him. 

Conscience  convinces  every  man  that  he  is  a  sinner,  and 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  75 

^  that  God  is  just.     Does  natural  reason  infer 

hopeof°pardonT"No!  ^ny  adequate  proofs  that  God  will,  on  any 
terms,  be  merciful;  or  is  His  righteousness 
as  imperative  as  that  conscience,  which  is  His  vicegerent  within 
us?  This  is  the  question  of  most  vital  interest  to  us  in  natural 
religion.  We  are  pointed  to  the  abounding  evidences  of  God's 
benevolence,  and  told  that  mercy  is  but  benevolence  towards 
the  guilty.  But,  alas !  Nature  is  almost  equally  full  of  eviden- 
ces of  His  severity.  Again,  we  are  pointed  to  that  hopeful 
feature  in  the  order- of  His  providence,  which  is  but  another 
expression  for  the  regular  ordering  of  His  will,  where  we  see 
remedial  processes  offered  to  man,  for  evading  the  natural  con- 
sequences of  his  errors  and  faults.  Does  man  surfeit  himself? 
Nature  offers  a  healing  medicine,  and  arrests  the  death  which 
his  intemperance  has  provoked.  Does  the  prodigal  incur  the 
penalty  of  want?  Repentance  and  industry  may  repair  his 
broken  fortunes.  So,  alleviations  seem  to  be  provided  on  every 
hand,  to  interpose  mercifully  between  man's  sins  and  their  nat- 
ural penalties.  May  we  not  accept  these  as  showing  that  there 
is  some  way  in  which  God's  mercy  will  arrest  our  final  retribu- 
tion? This  expectation  may  have  that  slight  force  which  will 
prepare  us  to  embrace  with  confidence  the  satisfaction  of  Christ, 
when  it  is  revealed  to  us  in  the  gospel.  But  I  assert  that,  with- 
out revelation,  all  these  slight  hints  of  a  possible  way  of  mercy 
are  too  much  counterbalanced  by  the  appearances  of  severity, 
to  ground  any  hope  or  comfort  in  the  guilty  breast.  What  is 
the  testimony  of  Conscience?  Does  she  accept  any  of  the 
throes  of  repentance,  or  the  natural  evils  inflicted  on  faults,  as 
a  sufficient  atonement?  On  the  contrary,  after  the  longest 
series  of  temporal  calamities,  the  approach  of  death  only 
sharpens  her  lash.  The  last  act  of  culminating  remorse,  as  the 
trembling  criminal  is  dismissed  from  his  sufferings  here,  is  to 
remit  him  to  a  just  and  more  fearful  doom  beyond  the  grave. 
And  what  say  conscience  and  experience  of  the  atoning  virtue 
of  our  repentance  and  reformations  ?  They  only  repair  the 
consequences  of  our  faults  in  part.  The  sense  of  guilt  remains  : 
yea,  it  is  the  very  nature  of  repentance  to  renew  its  confession 
of  demerit  with  every  sigh  and  tear  of  contrition.  And  the 
genuineness  of  the  sorrow  for  sin  has  no  efficacy  whatever  to 
recall  the  consequences  of  the  wrong  act,  and  make  them  as 
though  they  had  never  been.  But,  above  all,  every  palliation 
of  natural  penalty,  every  remedial  process  offered  to  our  reach 
by  nature,  or  ministered  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  friends,  is  but 
temporary.  For,  after  all,  death  comes  to  every  man,  to  the 
most  penitent,  the  most  genuinely  reformed,  the  restored  sinner 
most  fenced  in  by  the  mediatorial  love  of  his  fellows,  as  cer- 
tainly as  to  the  most  reckless  profligate ;  and  death  is  the 
terrible  sum  of  all  natural  penalties.  This  one,  universal  fact, 
undoes   everything  which  more  hopeful  analogies  had  begun, 


76  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

and  compels  us  to  admit  that  the  utmost  reason  can  infer  of 
God's  mercy  is,  that  it  admits  a  suspension  of  doom. 

The  last  question  which   we  shall  now   discuss  in  Natural 

Theology,  is  concerning  its  sufficiency  to  lead  a  soul  to  eternal 

blessedness.     Now,  I   have  strenuously  con- 

4.  Is  Natural  Theology  tended  that  there  is  some  science  of  Natural 
sumcient :  . 

Theology.       we  have  seen  that  it  teaches  us 

clearly  our  own  spirituality  and  future  existence,  the  existence 
and  several  of  the  attributes  of  God,  His  righteousness  and 
goodness  and  our  responsibility  to  Him,  His  providential  con- 
trol over  all  His  works,  and  our  endless  relation  to  the  sanctions  of 
His  moral  attributes.  But  man  needs  more  than  this  for  his  soul's 
well-being ;  and  we  assert  that  Natural  Theology  is  fatally  de- 
fective in  the  essential  points.  We  might  evince  this  practically 
by  pointing  to  the  customary  state  of  all  gentile  nations,  to  the 
darkness  of  their  understanding  and  absurdities  of  their  beliefs, 
the  monstrous  perversions  of  their  religious  worship,  and  the 
blackness  of  their  general  morals.their  evil  conscience  during  their 
lives,  and  their  death-beds  either  apathetic  or  despairing.  If  it 
be  said  that  I  have  chosen  unfavourable  examples,  then  I  might 
argue  the  point  practically  again,  by  pointing  to  the  brightest 
specimens  of  pagan  philosophy.  We  see  that  with  all  the  germs 
of  truth  mixed  with  their  creeds,  there  were  many  errors,  that 
their  virtues  lacked  symmetry  and  completeness,  and  their  own 
confessions  of  uncertainty  and  darkness  were  usually  emphatic 
in  proportion  to  their  wisdom. 

But  to  specify.       One  fatal  defect  of  Natural  Theology  has 
been  already   illustrated.       Man  knows  himself  a  sinner  in  the 

hands  of  righteous  Omnipotence,  and  has  no 
^^""rate^^""^'  ^^^  ^^'   assurance  whatever  of  any  plan  of  mercy.  An 

equally  fatal  defect  might  be  evinced,  (far 
more  clearly  than  divines  have  usually  done,)  in  its  lack  of  regen- 
erating agency.  If  we  knew  nothing  of  the  sad  story  of  Adam's 
probation  and  fall,  just  reasoning  would  yet  teach  us,  that  man  is  a 
morally  depraved  being.  The  great  fact  stands  out,  that  his  will 
is  invincibly  arrayed  against  the  mandates  of  his  own  conscience, 
on  at  least  some  points.  Every  man's  will  exhibits  this  tendency 
in  some  respects,  with  a  certainty  as  infallible  as  any  law  of  na- 
ture. Now  such  a  tendency  of  will  cannot  be  revolutionized  by 
any  system  of  moral  suasion  ;  for  the  conclusive  reason  that  the 
efficacy  of  all  objective  things  to  act  as  inducements,  depends  on 
the  state  of  the  will,  and  therefore  cannot  revolutionize  it.  The 
effect  cannot  renew  its  own  cause.  But  Natural  Theology  offers 
no  moral  force  higher  than  moral  suasion.  Can  then  the  creature 
who  remains  an  everlasting  sinner,  possess  everlasting  well-being  ? 
Another  striking  defect  of  Natural  Theology  is  its  lack  of 
authority  over  the  conscience.     One    would  think   that   where 

the  inferences  of  natural  reason  appeared  con- 
Lacks  Authority.        clusive,  bringing  the  knowledge  of  a  God  to 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  77- 

the  understanding,  this  God  would  be  recognized  as  speaking  in 
all  her  distinct  assertions  ;  and  the  conscience  and  heart  would 
bow  to  him  as  implicitly  as  when  He  is  revealed  in  His  word. 
But  practically  it  is  not  so.  Men  are  but  too  ready  to  hold  re- 
vealed truth  in  unrighteousness ;  and  Natural  Theology  has 
ever  shown  a  still  greater  lack  of  authority,  even  over  hearts 
which  avowed  her  truth.  Perhaps  the  reason  of  this  is,  that 
every  mind  has  indistinctly  and  half  consciously  recognized  this 
profound  metaphysical  defect,  which  underlies  nearly  all  her  rea- 
sonings. How  do  we  first  know  spirit?  By  our  own  conscious- 
ness, presenting  to  us  the  thinking  hgo.  How  do  w^e  know 
thought,  volition,  power  ?  As  we  are  first  conscious  of  it  in  our- 
selves. What  is  our  first  cognition  of  the  right  and  the  wrong  ? 
It  is  in  the  mandates  of  our  consciences.  And  the  way  we  con- 
ceive of  the  infinite  Spirit,  with  His  thought,  will,  power,  recti- 
tude, is  by  projecting  upon  Him  our  self-derived  conception  of 
this  essence  and  these  attributes,  freed  from  the  limitations  which 
belong  to  ourselves.  Seeing,  then,  that  God  and  His  character 
are  to  so  great  an  extent  but  ourselves  objectified,  elevated 
above  our  conscious  defects,  and  made  absolute  from  our  con- 
scious limits,  how  can  we  ever  know^  that  the  correspondence  of 
the  objective  reality,  with  this  conception  of  it,  is  accurate  ?  It 
is  as  though  our  self-consciousness  were  the  mirror,  in  which 
alone  we  can  see  the  spectrum  of  the  great  Invisible  reflected. 
How  shall  we  ever  tell  to  what  degree  it  may  be  magnified, 
distorted,  coloured,  by  the  imperfection  of  the  reflecting  surface, 
seeing  Natural  Theology  can  never  enable  us  to  turn  around 
and  inspect  the  great  original,  eye  to  eye  ?  That  something  is 
there,  a  something  vast,  grand  and  real,  our  laws  of  thought  for- 
bid us  to  doubt ;  and  that  it  has  a  general  outline  like  the  re- 
flected image,  we  may  not  doubt ;  for  else,  what  was  it  that  cast  the 
mighty  spectrum  upon  the  disc  of  our  reason  ?  But  reason  can 
never  clear  up  the  vagueness  and  uncertainty  of  outline  and  de- 
tail, nor  verify  His  true  features.  Now,  when  Revealed  The- 
ology comes,  it  enables  us  to  make  this  verification ;  and 
especially  when  we  see  "God  manifest  in  the  flesh,"  "  the 
brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  express  image  of  His 
person." 

It  may  be  asked,  if  Natural  Theology  cannot  save,  why 
study  it?  I  answer:  1st.  It  teaches  some  truths  ;  and  no  truth 
is  valueless.  2d.  When  Revelation  comes, 
MoSf'"'^^^''''''"'  Natural  Theology  gives  satisfaction  to  the 
mind,  by  showing  us  two  independent  lines 
of  proof  for  sundry  great  propositions?  3d.  It  excites  the 
craving  of  the  soul  for  a  Revelation.  4th.  When  that  comes,  it 
assists  us  to  verify  it,  because  it  meets  the  very  wants  which 
Natural  Theology  has  discovered. 

Finally,  if  Revelation  is  absolutely  necessary  for  salvation, 
there  is  the  strongest  probability  that  God  has  given  one.    This 


78  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

appears  from  God's  goodness  and  wisdom. 
ex^e^tS"^""*'""  "^^^  ^'    It  is  proved,  second,  by  the  admissions  of  the 

Deistical  argument,  which  always  assumes 
the  burden  of  proof  in  the  proposition:  "Revelation  is' not 
necessary."  It  appears,  third,  from  the  gene  ral  expectation  and 
desire  of  a  communication  from  the  skies  among  Pagans.  Last: 
when  we  see  (as  will  be  demonstrated  at  an  other  place)  that  the 
enjoyment  of  infallible  communications  from  the  infinite  Mind 
is  the  natural  condition  of  life  to  all  reasonable  spirits,  the  argu- 
ment will  become  conclusive,  that  God  surely  has  given  a  mes- 
sage to  man.  Now,  no  other  book  save  the  Bible  presents 
even  a  plausible  claim  to  be  that  Revelation. 


LECTURE  VIIL 

THE  SOURCES  OF  OUR  THINKING. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Has  man  any  "Innate  Ideas"  ?    See, 

Locke's  Essay,  bk.  i,  cli.  2.  Morell,  Hist.  Mod.  Phil.,  pp.  76  to  95,  (Cart''-'s 
Ed.)  Cousin,  Du  Vrai,  Le?ons  ire  et  2ine.  Dugald  Stuart  on  the  Mird, 
chaps,  i,  iii,  iv. 

2.  Must  all  thinking  proceed  from  Intuitive  Beliefs  ?  Why  ?  Why  are  they,  if 
unproved,  received  as  valid?  What  the  answer  to  the  Skeptical  Conclusion  of  Mon- 
taigne or  Hume? 

Morell,  pp.  252-254.  Jouffroy,  Intr.  to  Ethics,  vol.  i,  Lectures  8-10.  Cousin, 
Du  Vrai,  Legons  3me  et  4eme. 

3.  What  are  the  tests  of  Intuitive  Beliefs  ?  Show  that  our  belief  in  our  own 
Consciousness;  In  our  Spiritual  Existence;  In  our  Identity;  In  the  reahty  of  the 
Exte:'nal  World ;  and  in  EstabUshed  Axioms,  belong  to  this  class. 

Cousin,  as  above.  Sensualistic  Phil,  of  19th  Cent.,  ch.  11.  Mills'  Logic,  bk. 
ii,  ch.  5th. 

4.  Prove,  especially,  that  our  belief  in  Causation  and  power  is  Intuirive. 

Same  authorities.     Mill,  bk.  ii,   ch.  5th,   and  bk.   iii,   ch.    5th  and  21st.     Dr. 
Thomas  Brown,  Lect.  7th.     Morell,  pp.  186,    187,   254,   3S2,   &c.     Chalmers' 
Nat.  Thelog}',  bk.  i,  ch.  4lh.     Thorn  well,  vol.  i,  p.  499,  &c. 
Show  the  relation  between  this  doctrine,  and  Nat.  Theolog}'  and  all  science,  \  7. 

IV/TANY  think,  with  Locke,  that  the  inquiry  into  the  powers 
of  the  human  mind  should  precede  all  other  science,  be- 
Is  it  necessary  to  study  cause  one  should  know  his  instrument  before 
the  mind's  powers,  be-  he  uses  it.     But  what  instrument  of  knowing 
fore  all  else?  jg  j^^^j  ^q  employ  in  the  examination  of  his 

own  mind?  Only  his  own  mind.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  the 
mind's  native  laws  of  thinking  must  be,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
taken  upon  trust,  at  the  outset,  no  matter  where  we  begin. 
This  is  the  less  to  be  regretted,  because  the  correct  use  of  the 
mind's  powers  depends  on  nature,  and  not  on  our  success  in 
analyzing  them.  Men  syllogized  before  Aristotle,  and  genera- 
lized before  Bacon.  I  have  therefore  not  felt  obliged  to  begin 
with  these  inquiries  into  the  sources  of  our  thinking;    but  have 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  79 

given   you   a   short  sketch  of  Natural  Theology  to  familiarize 
your  minds  to  your  work. 

You  may  ask :  Since  every  science  must  employ  the 
'  „^^  ^  ^  ^  mental  powers,  and  yet  the  teacher  of 
TlSgy?  '  '''''  Chemistry,  Mathematics,  Mechanics,  does 
not  find  it  necessary  to  preface  his  instruc- 
tions with  inquiries  into  the  laws  and  facts  of  psychology,  why 
should  the  divine  do  it?  One  answer  is  that  thoroughness  in 
theology  is  much  more  important.  Another  is,  experience 
shows  that  theological  speculation  is  much  more  intimately 
concerned  with  a  correct  psychology  than  physical.  The  great 
English  mathematicians,  of  the  school  of  Newton,  have  usually 
held  just  views  of  philosophy  ;  the  French  of  the  school  oi  La 
Place  have  usually  been  sensualistic  ideologues  of  the  lowest 
school.  In  mathematics  and  astronomy,  they  have  agreed 
well  enough ;  in  theology,  they  have  been  as  wide  apart  as 
Christianity  and  atheism.  This  is  because  theology  and  ethicks 
are  little  concerned  with  physical  observations :  much  with  ab- 
stract ideas  and  judgments.  For  these  reasons  it  is  necessary 
for  the  divine  to  attain  correct  views  of  the  great  facts  of 
mental  science ;  while  yet  we  do  not  stake  the  validity  of  theo- 
logical truths  on  the  validity  of  any  mere  psychological  argu- 
ments. 

My  purpose  is  to  give  by  no  means  a  complete  synopsis, 
even,  of  mental  science ;  but  to  settle  for  you  correct  opinions 
concerning  those  fundamental  facts  and  laws  of  spirit,  upon 
which  theological  questions  most  turn. 

Of  these  I  take  up  first  the  question :    Has  the  mind  any 

innate  ideas  ?      The  right  answer  is.  No ;  but 
I.  Oueshon  of  innate  •-   1  •  ,  1  •    1  ^    •      •     i-    .    , 

j^jg^g/^  it  has  mnate  powers,  which  a  pi  ion  dictate 

certain  laws  of  thought  and  sensibility,  when- 
ever we  gain  ideas  by  sensitive  experience.  Locke,  famous  for 
exploding  the  doctrine  of  innate  ideas,  goes  too  far;  teaching 
that  we  derive  all  our  ideas  (he  defines  an  idea,  whatever  we 
have  in  our  minds  as  the  object  of  thought)  from  sensation. 
This  he  holds  is  a  passive  process ;  and  all  that  the  processes 
of  reflection  (the  active  ones)  can  do,  is  to  recall,  group,  com- 
pare, combine,  or  abstract  these  materials.  Before  sensation, 
the  mind  is  a  tabula  rasa,  without  impress  in  itself,  passively 
awaiting  whatever  may  be  projected  on  it  from  without.  To 
show  that  no  ideas  are  innate,  he  takes  up  two  classes,  hitherto 
considered  most  clearly  such,  abstract  ideas  of  space,  time, 
identity,  and  infinity,  &c.,  and  axioms ;  assuming  that  if  these 
can  be  explained  as  derived  ideas,  and  not  innate,  there  are 
none  such.  He  teaches,  then,  that  we  only  get  the  idea  of 
space,  by  seeing  two  bodies  separated  thereby ;  of  time,  by 
deriving  it  from  the  succession  of  mental  impressions ;  of  iden- 
tity, as  remembered  consciousnesses.  Axioms,  he  holds  to  be 
clearly  truths  of  derivation,  because  untutored  minds  do  not 


8o  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

believe  them,  as  they  would  were  they  intuitive,  until  they  see 
them  from  concrete,  experimental  cases,  by  sensation. 

Consider  how  far  this  kind  of  vicious  anylysis  may  lead, 

as   in   the   hands   of    Condillac,  Comte,  and 
.sSSLS^fpi;:!;*^'  Mill,  to  sensationalism  and  last,  to  material- 

ism  and  atheism.  If  no  first  truth  is  of 
higher  source  than  an  inference  of  experience,  then  none  can 
be  safely  postulated  beyond  experience.  Hence,  the  argument 
for  a  God,  the  belief  of  all  the  supernatural,  is  invalid.  Wit- 
ness Hume's  evasion,  that  the  world  is  a  "singular  effect." 
How  can  sensation  show  us  a  God?  Another  equally  logical, 
although  a  most  heterogeneous  consequence,  is  the  Pyrrhonism 
of  Bishop  Berkeley.  And  another  must  be  the  adoption  of 
of  some  artificial  scheme  of  ethicks,  resolving  the  highest  law 
of  conscience  into  a  deduction  of  self-interest,  or  some  such 
wretched  theory.  For  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  mind,  save 
what  comes  by  sense,  (Ni/iz!  in  intellectii  quod  non  prius  in 
sensii,)  whence  the  notions  of  right  and  obligation? 

The  great  error  of  the  analysis  of  Locke  was  in  mistaking 

the     occasional     cause,    sensation,     for    the 

efficient  cause  of  abstract  ideas,  which  is  the 
reason  itself.  For  example :  We  first  develope  the  idea  of 
space,  when  we  see  bodies  in  space ;  but  the  idea  of  space  is. 
implied  a  priori,  in  the  very  perception  of  that  which  is  ex- 
tended, not  learned  derivatively  from  it.  True,  our  most 
natural  conception  of  time  is  of  that  measured  in  our  succes- 
sive consciousnesses.  But  the  word,  "succession"  once  spoken, 
time  is  already  conceived.  That  is  to  say,  the  reason,  on  per- 
ceiving a  thing  extended,  intuitively  places  it  in  space ;  and 
event,  in  time ;  the  sense  furnishing  the  occasion,  the  reason 
furnishing  the  abstract  notion,  or  form,  for  the  concrete  percep- 
tion. So  in  the  other  cases.  To  the  attempt  to  derive  axioms, 
we  answer  that  the  sensitive  experience  of  some  instance  is  the 
occasion,  but  the  intuition  of  the  reason  the  efficient,  of  these 
primitive  and  necessary  judgments.  For  since  our  experiences 
of  their  truth  are  few  and  partial,  how  can  experience  tell  us 
that  they  are  universally  true?  To  the  objection,  that  they  do 
not  universally  and  necessarily  command  the  assent  of  un- 
tutored minds,  I  fearlessly  rejoin  that  this  is  only  true  in  cases 
where  the  language  of  their  enunciation  is  not  understood. 
But  of  this,  more  anon. 

To  show  the  student  how  shallow  is  the   analysis  which 

traces  the  whole  of  our  thinking  to  sense,  I 
notion'T'""''''^''"'"  ask:    When   the    "reflective"    processes    of 

comparison,  e.  g.,.have  given  us  perception 
of  a  relation  between  two  sensible  objects,  (as  of  a  ratio  be- 
tween two  dimensions,)  is  not  this  relation  a  new  idea? 
Whence  is  it?  ' 

In  a  word,  you  may  find  the  simplest,  and  also  the  highest 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  8 1 

and  most  general  refutation  of  this  sensual- 
e„Sedt"!,Xb'„'.t    i=^"=  philosophy  in  this  fact.      The  mind  is 

an  intelligent  agent.  Has  it  any  attributes? 
Any  cognizable,  permanent  essentia?  Surely.  Now,  then, 
must  not  those  essential  qualities  imply  powers?  And  will  any 
one  say  that  they  are  only  passive  powers,  and  yet  the  mind  is 
an  agent?  Surely  not.  Then  the  mind,  although  not  furnished 
with  innate  ideas,  must  have  some  innate  powers  of  deter- 
mining its  own  acts  of  intelligence. 

It  is  related  that  when  Locke's  Essay  on  the  Human  Un- 
derstanding was  first  reported  to  his  great  cotemporary,  Leib- 
nitz, some  one  remarked  that  Locke's  system  of  psychology 
was  built  on  a  literal  acceptation  of  the  old  scholastic  maxim. 
Nihil  in  intellectn,  quod  non  prins  in  sensit.  Leibnitz  answered  : 
Ita ;  Nisi  Intellectns  Ipse !  These  words  contain  the  key  to 
the  whole  discussion. 

There  is  a  plausible  temptation  to  deny  this,  and  to  treat 
all  our  notions  and  beliefs  as  derived.  It 
2.  All  our  beliefs  g^j-^ggg  from  the  feeling  that  it  is  more  philo- 
cannot  be  proved.  i  •      i  i  i^ 

sophical  to  take  nothing  upon  trust :  to  re- 
quire proof  of  everything.  But  does  not  a  derived  truth  imply 
something  to  derive  from?  If  therefore  primitive  judgments 
are  treated  as  derived,  the  problem  is  only  removed  one  step 
backward  to  this  question :  Whence  the  truths  of  which  these 
are  the  deductions?  Primary  or  derived?  To  prove  every 
postulate  is  therefore  impossible ;  because  the  first  proof  implies 
some  premise  from  which  to  prove.  Unless  then,  some  things 
are  seen  to  be  true  intuitively,  there  can  be  no  reasoning.  And 
these  unproved  truths  are  the  foundations  of  all  that  we  prove. 
The  question  then  arises.  If  these  primary  beliefs  are  un- 
proved, how  can  we  know  that  any  of  our 

Metaphysical  Skep-    thinking  thence  is  true  ?     I  have   now  intro- 
ticism.     Its  grounds.  ^ 

duced  you  to  the  very  centre  of  the  skeptical 
objections  of  the  school  of  Montaigne  and  Hume,  against  the 
certainty  of  all  human  knowledge.  Let  us  also  view  the  other, 
less  radical  grounds.  They  argue,  then  :  1st.  That  knowledge 
must  be  uncertain  as  long  as  it  is  incomplete  ;  because  the  dis- 
covery of  the  unknown  related  parts  may  change  our  view  of 
those  supposed  to  be  known.  And  that  men  in  all  ages  have 
believed  differently  with  equal  confidence.  2d.  That  percep- 
tion only  shows  us  qualities,  and  not  substances,  so  that  we 
have  only  the  mind's  inference,  unproved  and  undemonstrable, 
for  the  existence  and  essence  of  the  latter.  3d.  That  our 
organs  of  sense,  the  instruments  of  all  perceptions,  are  per- 
petually changing  their  atomic  structure ;  that  they  often  de- 
ceive us ;  that  the  significance  which  we  give  to  sensations 
depends  on  habits,  knowledge  and  education ;  and  that  as  to 
memory,  we  must  take  the  correctness  of  her  reproductions 
wholly  upon  trust.  4th.  That  our  general  and  abstract  ideas, 
6* 


82  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

such  as  those  of  causation,  space,  identit}^  substance,  &c., 
have  not  even  the  uncertain  evidence  of  sensation ;  but  are 
given  by  the  mind's  own  a  priori  forms  of  thought ;  so  that  we 
have  no  proof  for  them,  save  that  nature  teaches  us  to  think  so. 
And  last :  The  sweeping  objection  is,  that  man  only  knows  his 
own  subjective  states;  to  the  outside  of  that  charmed  circle  he 
can  never  pass,  to  compare  those  states  with  objective  reality. 
But  as  there  is  no  ground  for  our  assuming  the  validity  of  this 
objective  perception,  except  that  it  is  nature  to  make  it,  we 
have  only  to  suppose  a  different  structure  giv^en  to  our  minds, 
to  make  all  seem  false,  which  now  seems  true. 

Such  are  the  sweeping  objections.      To  the  first  three   of 

the  special  ones,  there    is  one  general  and 
Refutation  of  skepti-    perfectly  valid  "answer.     It  is  not  proved  that 

all  the  teachings  of  sensation,  memory, 
reason,  are  untrustworthy,  because  they  are  sometimes  misin- 
terpreted, or  because  men  differ  about  them  sometimes.  For 
the  mind  knows  that  it  is  furnished  with  criteria  for  verifying 
seeming  perceptions,  recollections,  inferences,  which  criteria 
give  certain  results,  when  applicable,  and  when  faithfully  ap- 
plied. If  there  are  no  such,  how  did  the  skeptic  find  out  the 
falsehood  of  so  many  of  the  seeming  dicta  of  these  faculties? 
As  to  the  first  and  radical  plea,  that  primitive  judgments  must 
be,  from  their  very  nature,  unproved,  and  that  man  can  never 
know  anything  besides  his  own  subjective  states,  I  freely  grant 
that  a  direct  logical  refutation  is  out  of  the  question,  from  the 
very  terms  of  it.  But  a  valid  indirect  one  lies  in  these  facts : 
1st.  That  the  skeptic,  just  as  much  and  as  necessarily,  holds 
these  primary  beliefs  as  w^e  do.  Being  irnplied  in  the  validity 
of  all  other  beliefs,  they  must  be  accepted  as  true,  or  all  think- 
ing must  cease ;  w^e  are  no  longer  intelligent  beings.  But  the 
skeptic  will  think:  his  argument  against  us  is  thinking,  (erro- 
neous.) 2d.  We  cannot  conceive  how  an  intelligent  being 
could  be  formed  at  all,  against  whose  primary  beliefs  the 
same  objections  would  not  lie ;  and  most  against  God's  !  3d. 
The  fact  that  primitive  beliefs  are  unproved  is  the  very  glory  of 
their  certainty,  and  not  their  w^eakness.  They  admit  no  proof, 
only  because  they  are  so  immediate.  The  perversity  of  the 
skeptic  is  just  that  of  the  man  who,  when  in  perfect  contact 
with  a  tree  or  post,  should  declare  it  impossible  to  ascertain 
whether  it  was  near  or  distant,  because  forsooth  he  was  so  near 
that  no  measuring  rule  could  be  introduced,  to  measure  the 
distance  !  4th.  Chiefly  we  apply  the  argumentum  ad  Jioniincm 
of  Pascal.  If  no  knowledge  can  be  certain,  then  the  skeptic 
must  not  affirm  his  unbelief;  for  this,  if  admitted,  would  be  a 
true  proposition.  The  very  mental  processes  exhibited  in  these 
objections  imply  many  of  the  primary  beliefs,  against  the  va- 
lidity of  which  the  skeptic  objects.  If  nothing  can  be  proved, 
Avhat  right  has  he  to  go  about  proving  that  nothing  can  be 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  83 

proved  ?  Finally :  Truth  is  intrinsic,  and  not  a  mere  conse- 
quence of  our  mental  structure. 

The  tests  of  an  intuitive  or  primary  truth  established  by  the 
best  writers  are  three,  (i.)  They  are  pri- 
ti^^jSgmenu?^""'"  ^^ry :  (what  Hamilton  calls,  ambiguously, 
incomprehensible,  not  capable  of  being  com- 
prehended under  some  more  general  and  primary  judgment, 
and  of  being  explained  thereby.)  They  are  primary,  because 
they  are  not  derived  or  inferred  from  any  other  truth,  prior  in 
order  of  proof  to  the'm ;  but  are  seen  to  be  true  without  any 
dependence  on  a  premise,  (2.)  They  are  necessary — i.  e.,  the 
mind  not  only  sees  they  are  true,  but  must  be  true ;  sees  that 
the  negation  of  them  would  lead  to  a  direct  contradiction. 
(3.)  They  are  universal — i.  e.,  the  mind  is  obliged  to  believe 
them  as  much  true  in  every  relevant  case,  as  in  the  first ;  and 
.all  people  that  are  sane,  when  the  terms  of  their  enunciation 
are  comprehended  with  entire  fairness,  and  dispassionately 
considered,  are  absolutely  certain,  the  world  over,  to  accept 
them  as  true.  Now,  our  adversaries,  the  sensationalists,  would 
freely  admit  that  if  the  mind  has  any  judgments  which  would 
stand  these  three  tests,  they  are  indeed  immediate  intuitions. 
The  most  practical  way,  therefore,  to  discuss  their  validity,  will 
be  to  do  it  in  application  to  special  classes  of  supposed  intuitions. 

Are  the   propositions   called   axiomatic   truths,  immediate 

intuitions  ;  or  are  they  derived  truths  ?     Sen- 
Axioms  are  such.  ,•        1-  ,  ,1      1   ,,  1  ,1 

sationalists  say,  the  latter;    because  they  are 

not  primary  truths  ;  but  deductions  of  our  experience  ;  for  they 
say,  as  we  have  seen  Locke  write,  no  one  has  them  till  he 
learns  them  by  experimental,  sensational  trial,  and  observation ; 
and  the  announcement  of  them,  instead  of  receiving  from  the 
untutored  mind  that  immediate  assent  we  claim,  would,  in  many 
cases,  excite  only  a  vacant  stare.  We  have  already  shown  that 
the  concrete  case  is  only  the  occasion,  not  the  source,  of  the 
axiomatic  judgment.  And  as  to  the  latter  objection,  the  mind 
hitherto  uninformed  fails  to  assent  to  them,  only  because  he 
does  not  understand  the  terms  of,  or  comprehend  the  relations 
connected  with,  the  proposition.  Grant  that  the  presenting  of 
a  concrete,  experimental  case  is  at  first  necessary  to  enable  this 
mind  to  comprehend  terms  and  relations ;  still  we  claim  (the 
decisive  fact)  that  once  they  are  comprehended,  the  acceptance 
of  the  proposition  is  inevitable.  How  preposterous  is  this  ob- 
jection, that  because  the  mind  did  not  see,  while  the  medium 
was  obstructed,  therefore  the  object  is  not  visible  ?  One  might, 
with  equal  justice,  say  that  my  child  had  no  faculty  qf  im- 
mediate eye-sight,  because  he  would  not  be  willing  to  affirm 
which  of  "  two  pigs  in  a  poke  "  was  the  bigger!  I  argue  again 
under  this  head,  that  several  axioms  are  incapable  of  being  ex- 
perimentally inferred ;  because  they  never  can  be  brought 
under  the   purview  of  the  senses ;  e.  g.      "  Divergent   straight 


84  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

lines  will  never  meet  if  produced  to  infinity."  No  one  will 
ever  inspect  with  his  sight  or  touch  an  infinite  line  !  But,  says 
Mill,  one  forms  a  mental  diagram  of  an  infinite  pair  of  lines ; 
and  by  inspection  of  them,  learns  the  truth.  On  this  queer 
subterfuge,  we  might  remark  that  it  is  more  refreshing  to  us 
than  consistent  for  them,  that  sensationalists  should  admit  that 
the  abstract  ideas  of  the  mind  can  be  subjects  of  experimental 
reasoning.  We  had  been  told  all  along  that  true  science  dealt 
only  with  phenojnena.  It  is  also  news  to  us  that  sensationalism 
can  grant  the  mind  any  power  of  conceiving  infinite  lines! 
What  are  those,  but  those  naughty  things,  absolute  ideas,  with 
which  the  mind  ought  not  to  have  any  lawful  business,  because 
they  are  not  given  to  her  by  sensation  ?  But  chiefly,  Mill's 
evasion  is  worthless  in  the  presence  of  this  question :  what 
guides  and  compels  the  mind  in  the  formation  of  the  infinite 
part  of  this  mental  diagram,  so  as  to  ensure  its  correspondence 
with  the  sensible  part?  Not  sense,  surely;  for  that  is  the  part 
of  the  mental  diagram,  which  no  eye  can  ever  see.  It  is  just 
this  a  priori  power  of  judgment,  which  Mill  denies.  My  argu- 
ment stands.  Once  more  I  argue  on  this  head,  that  axioms 
cannot  be  experimentally  derived ;  because  they  are  universal 
truths :  but  each  man's  experience  is  partial.  The  first  time  a 
child  ever  divides  an  apple,  he  at  once  apprehends  that  the 
whole  is  larger  than  either  of  its  parts.  At  this  one  illustration 
of  it,  he  as  much  believes  it  of  all  the  divided  apples  of  the 
universe,  as  though  he  had  spent  an  age  in  dividing  millions  of 
apples  for  experiment.  How  can  a  universal  truth  come  from 
a  single  case  ?  If  experience  were  the  source  of  the  belief,  the 
greatest  multitude  of  cases  one  could  try,  would  never  be 
enough  to  demonstrate  a  universal  proposition ;  for  the  propor- 
tion of  similar  cases  possible  in  the  universe,  and  still  untried, 
would  be  infinitely  preponderant  still.  Experience  of  the  past 
can,  of  itself,  never  determine  the  future. 

The  sensationalist  is  inconsistent.  He  says  axioms  are 
learned  from  experience  by  sense  ;  and  there  are  no  primary 
judgments  of  the  pure  reason.  Aye  !  But  how  does  the  mind 
learn  that  sensational  experience  is  true  ?  that  perceptions  have 
any  validity  ?  Only  by  a  primary  judgment !  Here  then  is  the 
axiomatic  truth  that  what  sense  gives  us  experimentally  is  true.. 
This,  surely,  is  not  derived !  Indeed,  the  attempt  to  construct 
a  system  of  cognitions  with  a  denial  of  primary  ideas  and  judg- 
ments, will  be  found  in  every  case  as  preposterous  as  the  attempt 
to  hang  a  chain  upon  nothing. 

When  we  ask  whether  axiomatic  truths  will  meet  the  second 

test,  that  of  necessity,    sensationalists    say : 

For  axioms  are  neces-  u^l^^^^    jg^    necessary    truth?     Does     one 

sary  truths.  .  1.1         •     •  1 

answer,  with  Whewell,  that  it  is  one  the  nega- 
tion of  which  is  inconceivable ;  then  this  is  no  test  of  primary 
truths,  no  test  of  truths  at  all ;  because  our   capacity   for  con- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  85 

ceiving  things  to  be  possible  or  otherwise,  depends  on  our  men- 
tal habits,  associations,  and  acquirements,  notoriously ;  e.  g. 
The  Guinea  negro  king  could  not  conceive  it  possible  that  water 
could  be  solidified  by  cold  in  the  higher  latitudes.  This  will  be 
found  to  be  a  mere  verbal  sophism,  deriving  its  whole  plausibility 
from  the  unlucky  use  of  a  vague  term  by  the  friends  of  the 
true  theory.  A  truth  is  not  necessary,  because  we  negatively 
are  not  able  to  conceive  the  actual  existence  of  the  opposite 
thereof;  but  a  truth  is  necessary  when  we  positively  are  able  to 
apprehend  that  the  negation  thereof  includes  an  inevitable  con- 
tradiction. It  is  not  that  we  cannot  see  how  the  opposite  comes 
to  be  true,  but  it  is  that  we  are  able  to  see  that  that  the  oppo- 
site cannot  possibly  be  true.  Let  any  man  consult  his  con- 
sciousness :  is  not  the  proposition,  "  a  whole  is  greater  than 
its  parts,"  seen  by  the  reason  in  a  light  of  necessity,  totally  dif- 
ferent from  this  :  "The  natives  of  Guinea  are  generally  black,  of 
England  generally  white  ?"  Yet  the  latter  is  as  true  as  the  for- 
mer! 

Last,  on  this  head,  sensationalists  ring  many  changes  on  the 

assertion  that  axiomatic  beliefs  are  not  held  by 

e>  are    nueisa  .     ^^^  t^qii  alike  ;  that  there  is   debate  what  are 

axioms,  and  the  widest  differences  ;  and  that  some  things  long 
held  to  be  necessary  truths,  (e.  g.  Ex  niliilo  nihil  Jit ;  nature 
abhors  a  vacuum ;  a  body  cannot  act  without  a  medium  on  an- 
other with  which  it  is  not  present,)  are  now  found  not  only 
to  be  not  axioms,  but  not  true  at  all.  I  reply,  all  this  proves  that 
the  human  mind  is  an  imperfect  instrument,  as  to  its  primary 
judgments;  not  that  it  has  none.  The  same  mode  of  objecting 
would  prove,  with  equal  fairness,  (or  unfairness,)  that  derived 
truths  have  no  inferential  validity;  for  the  differences  about 
them  have  been  still  wider.  Man  is  often  incautious  in  his  think- 
ing, unconsciously  blinded  by  hypothesis,  habit  and  prejudice; 
and  thus  he  has  sometimes  (not  so  very  often  after  all)  failed  to 
apply  the  tests  of  axiomatic  truth  carefully.  Still  the  fact  re- 
mains, that  there  are  first  truths,  absolutely  universal  in  their 
acceptance,  on  which  every  sane  mind  in  the  world  acts,  and  al- 
ways has  acted  from  Adam's  day,  with  unflinching  confidence. 
On  that  fact  I  stand. 

The  remarks  made  in  introducing  my  discussion  of  the  im- 
materiality of  the  soul,  have  already  indicated 
Our  own  Spiritual  Ex- ^l^g   grounds  on   which  we    claim   our   belief 
istence  Intuitively  Seen.    .  °  .   .        ,  .  ... 

m  our  own  spu'itual  existence  as  an  mtuition. 

In  the  proposition  Cogito,  ergo  sum,  Des  Cartes  meant  to  indi- 
cate what  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  the  very  consciousness  of 
thinking  implies  an  intuitive  perception  of  an  existing  substance 
that  thinks.  But  what  better  definition  of  spirit,  as  a  something 
instinctively  contrasted  with  matter,  than  that  it  is  substance 
which  thinks? 

Locke  made  our  very  belief  of  our  own  identity,  a  derived 


86  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

notion,  the  simple  result  of  our  remembered 
Seen?"''*^  Intuitively  consciousnesses.  It  may  be  very  true  that  a 
second  consciousness  succeeding  a  first,  may 
be  the  occasion  of  the  rise  of  our  notion  of  identity.  But  it 
cannot  be  the  cause,  for  the  identity  of  the  thinking  being  who 
has  the  two  consciousnesses  is  implied  a  priori  in  those  states. 
The  word  self  cannot  be  comprehended  by  our  thought  without 
comprehending  in  it  the  notion  of  identity.  And  it  has  been 
well  remarked  that  our  belief  in  our  identity  cannot  be  a  deduc- 
tion, because  it  must  be  implied  beforehand,  in  our  very  capacity 
to  perceive  any  relation  between  premises  and  conclusion.  If 
the  comprehension  of  the  former  is  not  felt  to  be  the  act  of  the 
same  thinking  subject  who  comprehends  the  latter,  then  of  course 
there  is  no  possibility  of  a  logical  dependence  being  perceived 
between  them. 

Once  more,  we  assert  against  Berkeley,  and  all  other  ideal- 
ists, that  our  reference  of  our  sensations  to 
ImuiS/seen^^^^'^'"'''  ^"  external  world  as  their  cause,  and  that  a 
world  of  substances  to  which  the  mind  refers 
the  qualities  which  a  lone  sensation  perceives,  is  a  valid  intuition. 
It  is  primary ;  witness  the  notable  failures  of  all  the  attempts  to 
analyse  it  into  something  more  primary,  from  Aristotle  to  Reid. 
It  is  necessary  ;  for  the  pure  idealist  can  no  more  rid  himself  of 
the  practical  belief  that  this  was  an  objective  reality,  and  not  a 
mere  subjective  notion  of  a  pain,  which  caused  him  to  feel  that 
he  had  butted  his  head  against  a  post.  And  it  is  universal.  All 
minds  learn  it.  And  if  we  analyse  the  mental  part  of  our  sen- 
sation, we  shall  find  that  perception  is,  in  its  very  nature,  a  per- 
ception of  a  relation  between  sensitive  mind  and  outward  mat- 
ter. Grant  to  the  idealist  even  the  assertion  that  the  mind  im- 
mediately knows  only  its  own  subjective  states;  yet,  when  it  is 
conscious  of  the  subjective  part  of  what  we  call  a  perception, 
it  still  knows  by  its  consciousness,  that  there  was  an  effect  which 
it  did  not  induce  upon  itself  Surely  this  subjectivity  must  in- 
clude a  consciousness  of  its  own  volitions.  So,  of  the  absence 
of  a  volition  of  its  own.  Then,  as  the  mind  intuitively  and 
necessarily  knows  that  no  effect  can  be  without  a  cause,  it  must 
refer  this  phenomenon,  the  subjective  act  of  perception,  con- 
sciously uncaused  from  within,  to  some  real  thing  without. 

But  the  intuition  which  has  been  most  debated,  and  is  of 
most  fundamental  importance  to  theologians, 
fec^uStivIS^Belllvfc!:  ^^  our  notion  of  causation.  The  doctrine  of 
common  sense  here  is,  that  when  the  mind 
sees  an  effect,  it  intuitively  refers  it  to  some  cause,  as  producing 
its  occurrence.  Moreover,  the  antecedent  something  which 
made  it  to  be,  is  intuitively  apprehended  as  having  a  pozvcr  to 
produce  its  occurrence  ;  otherwise  it  would  not  have  occurred. 
For  the  mind  is  impelled  by  its  own  nature  to  think,  that  if 
there  had  not  been  a  something  adequate  to  make  the  occur- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  8/ 

rence  to  be,  it  would  not  have  been.  Nothing  can  only  result 
in  nothing :  and  a  thing  cannot  produce  its  own  occurrence  ;  for 
then  it  must  act  before  it  is.  Hence,  also,  this  immediate  de- 
duction that  this  power  will  always  produce  the  same  result, 
when  applied  under  the  same  circumstances.  The  occasion  of 
the  rise  of  this  notion  of  power  is,  no  doubt,  as  Morell  has 
said,  with  many  authors,  our  consciousness  of  our  own  volitions. 
Now,  the  sensational  psychologists,  at  the  head  of  whom  stands 
Hume  in  this  particular,  deny  all  this ;  and  say  that  our  belief 
that  similar  causes  wHU  produce  like  effects,  is  only  a  probable 
induction  of  our  experience  ;  (so  Mill,  adding  that  this  proba- 
bility rises  to  a  practical  certainty,  as  one  induction  concuvs  with 
another,)  that  the  mind  merely  presumes  the  sequence  will  be 
repeated  again,  because  it  has  been  presented  so  often  ;  that 
since  the  mind  is  entitled  to  no  idea,  save  what  perception  gives 
her,  and  the  senses  perceive  only  the  two  terms  of  the  sequence, 
without  tie  of  pozver  between  them,  the  notion  of  this  tie  is  base- 
less ;  and  pozver  in  causation  is  naught.  Dr.  Thomas  Brown, 
while  he  asserts  the  intuitive  origin  of  our  expectation,  that  like 
will  produce  like,  and  even  argues  it  with  great  acuteness,  still 
falls  into  the  latter  error,  denying  that  the  mind  has  any  ground 
for  a  notion  of  pozver  other  than  "  immediate,  invariable  ante- 
cedence ;"  for  this  is  all  perception  gives  us. 

Now,  our  first  remark,  in  defending  the  correct  doctrine, 
is,  that  this  argument  is  of  no  force  to  any 
Power"norPe?cdve7''  except  pure  sensationalists.  When  percep- 
tion furnishes  the  occasion,  a  sequence,  the 
reason,  by  its  innate  power,  furnishes  the  notion  of  cause  in  it. 
Perception  does  not  show  us  souls,  not  even  our  own  ;  but  rea- 
son compels  us  to  supply  the  notion  of  soul  as  the  subject  of 
perceptions  and  all  other  states.  Perception  does  not  show  us 
substance  in  matter,  but  only  a  bundle  of  properties  ;  reason 
compels  us  to  supply  the  notion  of  substance.  And  such  an 
argument  is  peculiarly  inconsistent  in  the  mouth  of  Brown,  who 
asserts  that  our  belief  in  the  recurrence  of  causative  sequences 
is  intuitive ;  for  it  is  impossible  for  the  reason  to  evade  the  ques- 
tion :  What  except  power  in  the  antecedent  can  make  the  se- 
quence immediate  and  invariable  ?  The  something  that  makes 
it  so,  is  just  our  notion  of  the  power. 

Having  thus  rebutted  objections  to  the  true  view,  we  return 
to  show  that  the  opposite  one  is  unreasonable 
from  Associadon '"'''^'^  and  absurd.  The  heterodox  metaphysicians 
deny  that  we  intuitively  apprehend  the  fact, 
that  every  effect  must  have  its  proper  cause,  and  vice  versa:  and 
the  most  plausible  ground  of  denial  is  to  say  that  this  presump- 
tion grows  in  our  minds  by  the  operation  of  the  associating  fac- 
ulty. It  is  a  law  of  our  minds  that  they  are  apt  to  repeat  those 
sequences  of  thought,  which  they  have  had  before  in  the  same 
juxtaposition;  and  hence  the  habit  grows  up,  of  thinking  of  the 


88  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

same  consequent  when  we  see  the  same  antecedent ;  and  we 
naturally  learn  to  expect  to  see  it.  But  I  will  show  that  the  be- 
lief in  cause  is  not  the  consequence,  but  the  ground  and  origin 
of  the  association.  For  instance  ;  man  knows  perfectly  well 
that  certain  sequences  which  recur  before  him  perpetually  and 
regularly,  as  of  light  on  darkness  are  not  causative ;  while  he 
believes  that  certain  others,  as  of  light  on  the  sun's  rising,  are 
causative.  Now  if  the  associative  habit  had  produced  the  notion 
of  causation,  it  would  have  done  it  alike  in  both  cases  ;  for  both 
sequences  recurred  with  exactly  the   same  .uniformity. 

I  remark,  farther,  that  no  experiences  of  the  fact  that  a 
given  antecedent  had  produced  a  given  con- 
Norfrom  Experience,  ggq^g^t  SO  far  as  observed,  could  logically 
produce  the  conviction  that  it  would,  and  must  do  so  every- 
where, and  in  all  the  future,  if  it  were  not  sustained  by 
an  intuitive  recognition  of  cause  and  effect  in  the  sequence. 
The  experience  of  the  past  only  proves  the  past ;  there  is 
no  logical  tie  v/hich  entitles  us  to  project  it  on  the  future, 
if  we  deny  the  intuitive  one.  How  many  experiences  of 
a  regular  sequence  entitle  us  to  carry  our  expectations  into 
the  future?  one  hundred?  500?  What  then  is  the  differ- 
ence between  case  499th  and  case  500th,  that  the  latter  alone, 
when  added  to  the  previous  past  experiences,  authorizes  us 
to  say  that  now  case  501st,  still  in  the  future,  must  eventuate  so 
and  so  ?  There  is  no  reasonable  answer.  In  truth,  experience 
of  a  mere  sequence,  by  itself,  generates  no  confidence  what- 
ever in  its  future  recurrence  with  causative  certainty.  You  may 
ask,  does  not  a  mere  empirical  induction  (inductio  simplicis 
emimeratioiiis.  Bacon,)  the  mere  recurrence  of  an  observed  se- 
quence, beget  in  our  minds  even  a  probable  expectation  of  its 
recurrence  in  the  future  ?  I  answer,  yes,  in  certain  sorts  of 
cases;  but  this  probable  expectation  proceeds  from  this:  We 
know  intuitively  that  the  consequent  in  this  sequence  must  have 
some  producing  cause :  whether  we  have  rightly  detected  it  among 
the  seeming  antecedents,  is  not  yet  proved  ;  and  hence  two 
facts  are  inferred  :  this  seeming,  visible  antecedent  may  be  the 
cause,  seeing  it  has  so  frequently  preceded ;  and  if  it  be  in- 
deed the  cause,  then  we  are  certain  it  will  always  be  followed  by 
the  effect.  But  we  have  not  yet  convinced  ourselves  that  some 
unseen  antecedent  may  not  intervene  in  each  case  observed  ; 
and,  therefore,  our  expectation  that  the  seeming  antecdent  will 
continue  to  be  followed  by  the  effect,  is  only  probable.  It  is, 
therefore,  not  the  number  of  instances  experienced,  in  which 
the  sequence  occurred,  which  begets  our  expectation  that  the 
sequence  must  recur  in  the  future  ;  but  it  is  the  probability  the 
mind  sees,  that  the  seeming  antecedent  may  be  the  true  one, 
which  begets  that  expectation.  And  if  that  probability  rises  to 
a  certainty  in  one  or  two  cases  of  the  observed  sequence,  it 
may  be  as  strong  as  after  ten  thousand  cases. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  89 

This  was  ingeniously  (perhaps    unintentionally)    illustrated 
by  some  of  the  performances  of  the  calculat- 
Abovf  "^''°''   °^    ^^'^    i"g  machine  constructed  by  the  famous  Bab- 
bage.     The  machinery  could  be  so    adjusted 
that  it  would  exhibit  a  series    of  numbers    in    an    aperture    of 
the   dial   plate,    having  a  given  ru.tioy  up  to  millions.    And  then 
without  any  new  adjustment  by  the  maker,  it  would  change  the 
ratio  and  begin  a  new  series, which  it  would  again  continue  with 
perfect  regularity  until  the  spectators  were  weary  of  watching. 
Now,  if  a  regular  empirical  induction,  however  long  continued, 
could  demonstrate  anything,  it  would  have  done  it    here.     But 
just  when  the  observer   had    convinced  himself  that    the    first 
ratio  expressed  the    necessary   law  of  the  machine.    Presto  !  a 
change  ;  and  a  different  one  supersedes  it,  without  visible  cause. 
This  introduces  the  argument,  that  it  is  not  a  habit    of  ex- 
perience which  begets  the  belief  in  the   reg- 
One  Instance  Cannot  ^jg^j.  connection  of  cause  and  effect,  because, 

lorm  a  habit  of  Asso-    .  •,        •  •        r   11       ,  ,1         r, 

ciation.  1^  many  cases,  it  arises  in   lull   strength   alter 

one  trial.  The  chifd  thrusts  his  finger  in  flame ; 
the  result  is  acute  pain.  He  is  just  as  certain  from  that  moment 
that  the  same  act  will  produce  the  same  feeling,  as  after  ten 
thousand  trials.  It  is  because  his  mind  compels  him  to  think 
the  primitive  judgment,  "  effect  follows  cause;"  and  the  sin- 
gleness of  the  antecedent  enables  him  to  decide  that  this  ante- 
cedent is  the  cause.  Take  another  case  :  A  school  boy,  utterly  ig- 
norant of  the  explosive  qualities  of  gunpowder,  shuts  himself  in  a 
room  with  a  portion  for  his  boyish  experiments.  After  finding 
it  passive  under  many  experiments,  he  at  length  applies  fire,  and 
there  is  an  immediate  explosion.  But  at  the  moment  the  tongs 
also  fell  on  it;  and  hence  it  may  not  be  yet  patent  which  of  the 
two  antecedents  (simultaneous)  was  cause.  Heresolves  to  clear 
up  this  doubt  by  another  trial,  in  which  the  tongs  shall  not  fall. 
He  applies  fire,  excluding  this  time  all  other  antecedent  changes, 
and  the  explosion  follows  again.  And  now.,  this  boy  is  just  as 
certain  that  fire  will  inevitably  explode  any  gunpowder,  that  is 
precisely  like  this,  provided  the  conditions  be  precisely  similar, 
as  a  million  of  experiments  could  make  him.  He  has  ascertained 
the  tie  of  cause. 

In  truth,  as  Dr.  Chalmers  well  says,  experience  is  so  far 
from  begetting  this  belief  in  the  regular  efficacy  of  causation,  that 
its  effect  is,  on  the  contrary,  to  limit  and  correct  that  belief  A 
little  child  strikes  his  spoon  on  the  table  ;  the  effect  is  noise.  At 
first  he  expects  to  be  able  to  produce  the  same  effect  by  striking 
it  on  the  bed  or  carpet,  and  is  vexed  at  the  failure.  Experience 
corrects  his  expectation  ;  not  by  adding  anything  to  his  intuitive 
judgment  of  like  cause,  like  effect;  but  by  teaching  him  that  in 
this  case,  the  cause  of  noise  was  complex,  not  single,  as  he  had 
before  supposed,  being  the  impact  of  the  spoon  and  the  elasticity 
of  the  thinsf  struck. 


go  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

The  subtile  and  yet  simple  reasoning,  by  which  Kant  (Crit- 
ick  of  Pure  Reason.  Bk.  ii,  Ch.  2,  §  3,)  shows 
an  b  igumen .  ^^^^  absurdity  of  resolving  cause  and  effect 
into  mere  sequence,  is  worthy  of  your  attention  here.  He  sug- 
gests two  instances  :  In  one  I  look  successively  at  the  different 
parts  of  a  large  house  over  the  way.  I  perceive  first,  for  in- 
stance, its  front,  and  then  its  end.  But  do  I  ever  think  for 
a  moment  that  the  being  of  the  end  is  successive  upon  the  be- 
ing of  the  front  ?  Never.  I  know  they  are  simultaneous.  In 
another  case,  I  see  a  vessel  in  the  river  just  opposite  to  me  ;  and 
next,  I  see  it  below  me.  The  perceptions  are  no  more  successive 
than  those  of  the  front  and  end  of  the  house.  But  now,  can  I 
ever  think  that  the  being  of  the  vessel  in  the  two  positions  is  co- 
etaneous?  It  is  impossible.  Why?  The  only  answer  is,  that 
the  law  of  the  reason  has,  by  intuition,  seen  effect  and  depend- 
ency, in  the  last  pair  of  successive  perceptions,  which  were  not 
in  the  first  pair.  The  same  vessel  has  moved;  motion  is  an  effect ; 
its  cause  must  precede  it.  And  this  suggests  the  other  member 
of  his  argument ;  In  a  causative  sequence,  the  interval  of  time  is 
wholly  inappreciable  to  the  senses ;  the  cause  A  and  the  effect  B 
seem  to  come  together.  Now,  why  is  it  that  the  mind  always 
refuses  to  conceive  the  matter  so  as  to  think  B  leads  A,  and  will 
only  think  that  A  leads  B  ?  Why  do  you  not  think  that  the  loud 
sound  of  the  blow  caused  the  impact  of  the  hammer,  just  as  of- 
ten as  you  do  the  impact  caused  the  sound  ?  Surely  there  is  a 
law  of  the  reason  regulating  this  !  Now  that  something  which 
determines  the  order  of  the  sequence,  is  power. 

Last,  it  is  only  because  our  judgment  of  cause  is  a  priori 
„,  I  t  "t"  B  r  f  ^""^  intuitive,  that  any  process  of  induction, 
of  Cause,  Necessary  practical  or  scientific.  Can  be  valid  or  de- 
prior  premise  of  all  Ex-  monstrative.  Bacon  shows,  what  even  J. 
perimental  Induction,  g^  ^,jj^  admits,  that  a  merely  empirical  in- 
duction can  never  give  certain  expectation  of  future  re- 
currence. To  reach  this,  some  canon  of  induction  must  be  ap- 
plied which  will  discriminate  the  post  hoc  from  the  propter  hoc. 
Does  not  Mill  himself  teach  the  necessity  of  such  canons  ?  In- 
spect any  instance  of  their  application  to  observed  sequence-,  and 
you  will  find  that  each  step  proceeds  upon  the  intuitive  law  of 
cause,  as  its  postulate.  Each  step  is  a  syllogism,  in  which  the 
intuitive  truth  gives  the  major  premise. 

Let  us  take  a  simple  case  falling  under  what  Mill  calls  his 
Method  by  Agreement.      (The  student    will  find 
-\ampe.  my  assertion  true  of  either  of  the   others.)     The 

school  boy  with  his  parcel  of  gunpowder,  e.  g.,  is  searching 
among  the  antecedents  for  the  true  cause  of  the  phenomenon  of 
explosion,  which  we  will  call  D.  That  cause  is  not  detected  at 
first,  because  he  cannot  be  certain  that  he  procures  its  occurrence 
with  only  a  single  antecedent.  First  he  constructs  an  experi- 
ment, in  which  he  contrives  to  exclude  all  antecedents  save  two,^ 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  9 1 

A  and  B.  The  result  D  follows;  but  it  is  not  determined 
whether  A  or  B,  or  the  two  jointly,  caused  it.  He  contrives  a 
second  experiment,  in  which  B  is  excluded;  but  another  ante- 
cedent event  C  happens  along  with  A,  and  again  D  follows.  Now 
we  can  get  the  truth.  We  reason  thus  :  "  In  the  first  experiment 
the  cause  of  D  must  have  been  either  A  or  B,  or  the  two  com- 
bined." But  why?  Because  the  effect  D  must  have  had  some 
immediate,  present  cause.  [But  we  know  that  no  other  imme- 
diate antecedent  effects  were  present,  save  A  and  B.]  This  is 
our  a  priori  intuition?  Well,  in  the  second  experiment,  either  A 
or  C,  or  the  two  combined,  must  have  caused  D.  Why?  The 
same  intuition  gives  the  only  answer.  But  we  proved,  in  the 
first  experiment,  C  had  nothing  to  do  with  producing  D  ;  and 
in  the  second,  B,  had  nothing  to  do  with  producing  D  ;  because 
C  was  absent  in  the  first,  and  B  in  the  second.  Then  A  was  the 
true  cause  all  the  time.  Why  ?  Why  may  not  B  have  been  the 
cause,  that  time  when  it  was  present?  Because  every  effect  has 
its  own  cause,  which  is  regular,  every  time  it  is  produced.  The 
premise  is  still  the  intuition :  "  Like  causes  produce  like 
effects." 

It  is  thus  appears,  that  this  intuitive  belief  is  essential  be- 
That  which  is  necessary  forehand,  to  enable  us  to  convert  an  experi- 
prior  premise  cannot  be  mental  induction  into  a  demonstrated  general 
deduction.  \d.v^.     Could  anything  more  clearly  prove  that 

the  original  intuition  itself  cannot  have  been  an  experimental 
induction?  It  passes  human  wit  to  see  how  a  logical  process 
can  prove  its  own  premise,  when  the  premise  is  what  proves  the 
process.  Yet  this  absurdity  Mill  gravely  attempts  to  ex- 
plain. His  solution  is,  that  we  may  trust  the  law  of  cause  as  a 
general  premise,  because  it  is  "an  empirical  law,  co-extensive 
with  all  human  experience."  May  we  conclude,  then,  that  a 
man  is  entitled  to  argue  from  the  law  of  cause  as  a  valid  gen- 
eral premise,  only  after  he  has  acquired  "all  human  experi- 
ence ?  "  This  simple  question  dissolves  the  sophism  into  thin 
air.  It  is  experimentally  certain  that  this  is  not  the  way  in 
which  the  mind  comes  by  the  belief  of  the  law ;  because  no 
man,  to  the  day  of  his  death,  acquires  all  human  experience, 
but  only  a  part,  which,  relatively  to  the  whole,  is  exceedingly 
minute  ;  and  because  every  man  believes  the  law  of  cause  to  be 
universal,  when  he  begins  to  acquire  experience.  The  just  doc- 
trine, therefore,  is  that  experimental  instances  are  only  the  oc- 
casions upon  which  the  mind's  own  intuitive  power  furnishes  the 
self-evident  law. 

This  argument,  young  gentlemen,  has,  I  think,  also  given 
you  an  illustration  of  the  justice  of  Arch- 
xHit  ''  ^"^^^^^^''^  bishop  Whateley's  logical  doctrine,  that  in- 
ductive argument  is,  after  all,  but  a  branch 
of  the  syllogistic.  The  answers  made  to  the  questions,  What  is 
inductive   argument?  are,  as  you   know,  confused  and  contra- 


■92  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

dictory.  Some  logicians  and  many  physicists  seem  to  think 
that  the  coUigation  of  similar  cases  of  sequences  in  considerable 
numbers,  is  inductive  demonstration.  Whereas,  I  have  cited  to 
you  Lord  Bacon,  declaring  that  if  the  induction  proceed  no  far- 
ther than  this,  it  is  wholly  short  of  a  demonstration,  and  can  but 
raise  a  presumption  of  the  existence  of  a/^wof  sequence,  which 
is  liable  to  be  overthrown  by  contrary  instances.  It  is  this  mis- 
take, which  accounts  for  the  present  loose  condition  of  much 
that  claims  to  be  physical  science ;  where  an  almost  limitless 
license  of  framing  hypotheses  which  have  probability,  prevails, 
claiming  the  precious  name  of  "  science,"  for  what  are,  by  Ba- 
con's just  rule,  but  guesses.  Many  other  logicians,  seeing  the 
obvious  defect  of  such  a  definition  of  inductive  demonstration, 
and  yet  supposing  that  they  are  obliged  to  find  an  essential  dif- 
ference between  inductive  and  syllogistic  logic,  invent  I  know 
not  what  untenable  definitions  of  the  former.  It  is,  in  fact,  only 
that  branch  of  syllogistic  reasoning,  which  has  the  intuition, 
"  Like  causes,  like  effects,"  as  its  major  premise,  and  which 
seeks  as  its  conclusion  the  discrimination  of  the  post  hoc  from 
the  propter  hoc,  in  seeking  the  true  causative  laws  of  events  in 
nature.  You  may,  if  you  please,  use  the  word  "  Indue tio,''  to 
express  the  colligation  of  similar  instances  of  sequence.  But 
inductive  demonstration  is  another  matter;  a  far  higher  matter, 
which  must  come  after.  It  is  the  logical  application  of  some 
established  canon,  which  will  infallibly  detect  the  immediate 
causative  antecedent  of  an  effect,  amidst  the  apparent  ante- 
cedents. Its  value  is  in  this  :  that  when  once  that  discovery  is 
clearly  made,  even  in  one  instance  of  sequence,  we  have  a  par- 
ticular laiv  of  7iatiire,  a  principle,  which  is  a  constant  and  per- 
manent guide  of  our  knowledge  and  practice.  But  why  does 
that  discovery  become  the  detection  of  a  law  of  nature  ?  Be- 
cause we  know  that  the  great  truth  reigns  in  nature :  "  Like 
causes,  like  effects" — in  other  words,  because  the  reason  has 
evolved  to  itself  the  intuitive  idea  of  efficient  poiver  in  causes. 
I  have  shown  you,  that  the  valid  application  of  those  canons  is, 
in  each  step  a  syllogism;  a  syllogism,  of  which  the  great  primar}'' 
law  of  causation  is  first  premise. 

This  exposition  shows  you  that  this   great  law  is  the  very 

key  of  nature.     It  is,  to   change  the  meta- 
Law  of  cause  is  key  pj^Q^,  the  corner-stone  of  all  the  sciences  of 
of  nature.  *  '  .  ii-itt  -c  • 

nature,  material  and  physical.     Hence,  11  its 

primary  and  intuitive  character  is  essential  to  its  validity,  as  I 
have  argued,  in  vindicating  this  thesis  we  have  been  defending 
the  very  being  of  all  the  natural  sciences,  as  well  as  the  citadel 
of  natural  theology.  Hence  it  follows  that  the  sensualistic 
school  of  metaphysics  is  as  blighting  to  the  interests  of  true 
physical  science,  as  of  the  divine  science.  The  inductive  meth- 
od, in  the  hands  of  physicists  who  grounded  it  substantially  in 
the  metaphysics  of  common  sense,  the  metaphysics  of  Turret- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  93: 

tin,  of  Dr.  Clarke  or  of  Reid,  gave  us  the  splendid  results  of 
the  Newtonian  era.  That  method,  in  the  hands  of  Auguste 
Comte,  J.  Stuart  Mill,  and  other  sensationalists,  is  giving  us  the 
modern  corruptions  and  license  of  Darwinism  and  Materialism. 
The  unhallowed  touch  of  this  school  poisons,  not  only  theology,, 
which  they  would  fain  poison,  but  the  sciences  of  matter,  which 
they  claim  as  their  special  care. 

Few  words  are  needed  to  show  the  intimate  relations  be- 
True  doctrine  of  cause  ^ween    the    true    doctrine  of  causation   and 
at  basis  of  Natural  The-  theology.     It  IS  on  his  heresy  about  causa-^ 
ology.  tion,  that  Hume  grounds  his  famous  argu- 

ment against  miracles.  It  is  on  the  same  error  he  grounds  his 
objection  to  the  teleological  argument  for  God's  existence,  that 
the  world  is  a  "  singular  effect."  You  saw  that  the  argu- 
ment just  named  for  God's  existence  is  founded  expressly  on 
this  great  law  of  cause. 

I  think  we  are  now  prepared  to  appreciate  justly  the  clam- 
our of  the  sensationalists  against  our  postu- 
Final  Cause.  lating  final  causes.     I  assert  that  it  is  only  by 

postulating  thevi,  that  zee  can  have  any  foundation  ivhatever  for 
any  inductive  science.  We  have  seen,  that  the  sole  problem  of 
all  inductive  demonstration  is,  to  discover,  among  the  apparent 
antecedents  in  any  given  sequences  of  changes,  that  one,  which 
is  efficient  cause. 

For  that  being  infallibly  ascertained,  we  have  a  Law  of 
Nature.  But  how  so  ?  How  is  it  that  a  re- 
Essential  to  all  regular  ia.tion  ascertained  in  one,  or  a  few  cases,  may 
hz  assumed  as  a  natural  law  ?  Because  our 
reasons  tell  us  that  we  are  authorized  to  expect  that  antecedent 
which  is  the  true  efficient  in  a  given  sequence  of  changes,  will 
be,  and  must  be  efficient  to  produce  the  same  sequent,  every 
time  that  sequence  recurs  under  precisely  the  same  conditions,, 
throughout  the  realm  of  nature,  in  all  ages  and  places.  [And 
that  belief  is  a  priori  and  intuitive  ;  else,  as  we  saw,  experience 
could  never  make  it  valid ;  and  the  demonstrations  of  regular 
law  in  nature  would  be  impossible — i.  e.,  science  would  be  im- 
possible.] But  on  what  condition  can  that  belief  be  valid  to  the 
mind  ?  If  there  is  nothing  truly  answering  to  the  a  priori  idea 
of  power  in  the  antecedent ;  if  all  the  mind  is  entitled  to  postu- 
late is  mere,  invariable  sequence  ;  and  if  that  efficient  Power  is 
to  be  excluded,  because  not  given  by  sense  perception  ;  is  that 
belief  valid  ?  Obviously  not.  Again  :  If  Cause  is  only  mate- 
rial necessity,  only  a  relation  in  blind,  senseless,  unknowing,  in- 
voluntary matter,  in  matter  infinitely  variable  and  mutable,  is 
there  any  possible  foundation  for  their  universal  and  invariable 
relations  in  given  sequences?  Is  any  intellect  authorized  a  pri- 
ori, to  expect  it.  Obviously  not.  It  is  only  when  we  assume 
that  there  is  a  Creator  to  the  created,  that  there  is  an  intellect 
and  will ;  and  that,  an  immutable  one,  establishing  and  govern^ 


94  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ing  these  sequences  of  physical  change ;  that  the  mind  can  find 
any  vahd  basis  for  an  expectation  of  law  in  them.  And  that  is 
to  say  :  There  is  a  basis  of  law  in  them  because,  and  only  be- 
cause, this  ruling  intelligence  and  will  has  some  end  in  view. 
We  may  not  know  which  end  ;  but  we  know  there  is  some  end, 
or  there  would  be  no  Law,  his  constancy  to  which  is  the  ground, 
and  the  explanation,  of  the  invariability.  But  that  is  the  doc- 
trine of  Final  Cause  !  Take  it  away ;  and  the  inductive  logic 
has  no  basis  under  it.  You  will  remember  the  line 
"  The  undevout  Astronomer  is  mad" — 

In  the  same  sense  we  may  assert,  that  the  logic  of  the  atheistic 
physicist  is  mad.  Do  we  not  find,  in  the  prevalence  of  Posi- 
tivist  and  Sensualistic  philosophy,  in  our  day,  the  natural  expla- 
nation of  the  deplorable  license  which  now  corrupts  and  deforms 
so  much  of  those  Natural  Sciences,  which,  in  the  hands  of  sound, 
theistic  physicists  like  Newton,  Davy,  Brewster,  have  run  so 
splendid  and  beneficent  a  course? 


LECTURE  IX. 

SOURCES  OF  OUR  THINKING.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Is  the  Intuitional  Reason  a  different  faculty  from,  and  of  higher  authority 
than,  the  Logical  Understanding? 

Locke's  Essay,  bk.  iv,  ch.  ii,  §  7.  Mosheim  Eccles.  Hist.,  Cent.  17th,  Sec.  i, 
^  24.     Morell.  p.  125.  pp.  161-168. 

2.  To  ascertain  tlie  origin  of  moral  distinctions  in  our  minds,  state  and  refute  the 
Selfish  System  of  Morals,  as  held  by  Hobbes,  and  others. 

Jouffroy's  Introduc.  to  Ethiclcs,  Lect.  ii.  Dr.  Thos.  Brown,  Lect.  78,  79. 
"Cousin,  Lc  Vrai,  &c.,  Lecon  12th.     JMorell,  p.  71-75. 

3.  State  and  refute  the  utilitarian  theory,  (as  held  by  Hume  and  Bentham.) 
"Crimes  of  Philanthrophy,"  in  the  Land  ive  Love,  Dec,  1866.  Jouffroy, 
Lect.  13,  14.  Brown,  Lect.  77,  78.  Cousin,  Le  Vrai,  &c.,  Lecon  13th. 
Morell,  p.  215,  &c.  Thornwell,  Discourses  on  Truth,  i,  ii.  Bishop  Buder's 
Sermons,  lith  to  14th.  Jonathan  Edward's  Essay  on  the  Nature  of  Virtue, 
ch.  i,  ii. 

4.  State  and  refute  Paley's  form  of  the  Selfish  System. 

Palcy's  Moral  Phil.,  pp.  24-60.  (8vo.  Ed.)  Jouffroy,  ch.  15.  Brown,  Lect. 
79,  80.  Alex.  Moral  Science,  ch.  i,  2,  3.  Cousin,  Dii  Vrai,  dii  Bean  et  dii 
Bien,  as  above. 

5.  State  and  discuss  the  Sentimental  Theoiy  of  Dr.  Adam  Smith. 
Jouffroy,  Lect.  16-18.     Brown,  Lect.  80-81.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  i. 

CEVERAL  analysts  of  the  laws  of  thought,  such  as  Hobbes 
^  and  Locke,  set  out  with  the  fascinating  idea  of  accepting 
I.  Transcendentahsts  nothing  upon  trust,  and  bringing  everything 
claim  priniitive  judg-  to  the  test  of  experimental  proof  The 
ments  licentiously.  miserable  sensationalism  and  materialism  to 

which  this  led  in  the  hands  of  Priestly  in  England,  and  Condil- 
lac  in  France,  taught  men  to  reflect,  that  unless  some  primary 
judgments  are  allowed  to  start  from,  there  can  be  no  beginning 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY,  95 

at  all :  so  that  some  truths  must  have  a  prior  authority  than  that 
of  proof.  By  what  faculty,  then,  are  they  perceived  ?  Trans- 
cendentalists,  from  Spinoza  to  the  modern,  have  all  answered, 
by  the. intuitive  reason  :  whose  sight  is  direct  intellection,  whose, 
conclusions  are  super-logical,  and  not,  therefore,  amenable  to 
logical  refutation.  The  frightful  license  of  dogmatizing  to  which 
these  schools  have  proceeded,  shows  the  motive ;  it  is  to  enjoy 
an  emancipation  from  the  logical  obligations  of  proving  dogmas. 
Do  we  say  to  them,  Your  assertions  do  not  seem  to  us  true,  and 
we  disprove  them  thus  and  thus  :  they  reply,  "Ah,  that  is  by 
your  plodding,  logical  understanding;  intuitions  of  the  pure 
reason  are  not  amenable  to  it ;  and  if  you  do  not  see  that  our 
opinion  is  necessarily  true,  in  spite  of  objections,  it  is  only  be- 
cause the  reason  is  less  developed  in  you."  So  the  quarrel  now 
stands.  It  seems  to  me  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  next  ad- 
justment and  improvement,  which  the  science  of  mind  must 
receive,  should  be  an  adjustment  of  the  relations  between  in- 
tuitions and  valid  deductions. 

Now,  we  might  practically  bring  the  transcendentalist  to 
.   •     J  reason    by    saying,    first,    that    they    always 

claim  the  validity  of  the  logical  understand- 
ing, when  they  find  it  convenient  to  use  it.  [The  very  evasion 
above  stated  is  a  deduction,  by  one  step,  from  false  premises  !] 
Hence,  consistency  requires  them  to  bow  to  it  everywhere. 
Second ;  we  might  apply  the  established  tests  of  a  true  intu- 
ition to  their  pretended  ones,  primariness,  truth,  and  univer- 
sality ;  and  thus  show  that,  when  they  profess  by  the  pure  rea- 
son to  see  dogmas  which  contradict  or  transcend  the  common 
sense  of  mankind,  they  are  but  making  wild  hypotheses.  But 
third  :  I  am  convinced  the  radical  overthrow  of  their  system 
will  be  seen  to  be,  at  length,  in  this  position  :  that  the  mind  sees 
the  truth  of  a  valid  deduction  by  the  same  faculty,  and  with 
equal  authority,  as  an  axiom  or  other  first  truth — i.  e.,  when 
major  and  minor  premise  have  a  conclusive  relation,  and  that 
relation  is  fairly  comprehended,  the  reason  sees  the  conclusion 
as  immediately,  as  necessarily,  as  intuitively,  as  authoritatively, 
as  when  it  sees  a  primary  truth. 

To  my  rpind,  the  simple  and  sufficient  proof  of  this  view  of 

the  logical  function  is  in  these  questions. 
a„dniSy?\f\°I?JS;"   What  is  the  human  intelhgence,  but  a  func- 

tion  of  seeing  truth  ?  As  the  eye  only  sees 
by  looking,  and  all  looking  is  direct  and  immediate  sense  intu- 
ition, how  else  can  the  mind  see,  than  by  looking — i.  e.,  by  ra- 
tional intuition?  Whether  the  object  of  bodily  sight  be  imme- 
diate or  reflective,  an  object  or  its  spectrum,  it  is.  still  equally 
true  that  the  eye  only  sees  by  looking — looking  immediately; 
in  the  latter  case  the  spectrum  only  is  its  immediate  object.  So 
the  mind  only  sees  by  looking;  and  all  its  looking  is  intuition; 
if  not  immediate,  it  is  not  its  own ;  it  is  naught.     One  of  the 


96  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

earliest,  Locke,  inconsistently  concurs  with  one  of  the  latest, 
jNIdGuffey,  of  the  great  English-speaking  psychologists,  in  as- 
serting the  view  I  adopted  before  consulting  either.  Locke's 
proof  of  it  Seems  to  me  perfectly  valid.  He  argues  {loco  cita- 
to^ that  if  the  mind's  perception  of  a  valid  relation  between  a 
proposition  and  its  next  premise  were  not  immediate,  then  there 
must  be,  between  the  two,  some  proposition  to  mediate  our  view 
of  it.  But  between  a  proposition  and  its  next  premise,  there 
can  be  no  other  interposed. 

But  to  this  view   many  sound    philosophers,   even,  would 

probably  object  strenuously.  That  the  first 
jec  ions  so  \e  .  great  mark  of  intuitive  authority,  primariness,. 
was  lacking;  that  the  position  is  utterly  overthrownby  the  wide 
and  various  differences  of  opinion  on  subjects  of  deduction  ; 
while  in  first  truths,  there  must  be  universal  agreement;  and 
that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  many  derived  conclu- 
sions claim  no  more  than  a  probable  evidence.  To  the  first,  I 
reply,  the  action  of  the  reason  in  seeing  a  deduced  truth,  is  not 
indeed  a  primary  judgment ;  but  the  fact  that  the  truth  is  seen 
only  by  relation  to  premises,  does  not  make  the  intellection  less 
immediate  and  necessary.  Just  so  truly  as  the  first  truth  is  seen 
to  be  necessarily  true,  so  the  deduced  truth  is  seen  to  be 
necessarily  true,  the  premises  being  as  they  are.  Several 
of  our  intuitions  are  intuitions  of  relations.  Why  should  it  be 
thought  so  strange  that  these  intellections  by  relations  should 
be  intuitive?  To  the  second,  propositions  called  axioms  have 
not  always  commanded  universal  agreement ;  and  we  are 
obliged  to  explain  this  fact  by  misapprehension  of  terms,  or 
ignorance  of  relations  included  in  the  propositions.  Well,  the 
same  explanation  accounts  consistently  for  the  differences  men 
have  in  their  deductions ;  and  the  more  numerous  differences  in 
this  class  of  propositions  are  accounted  for  by  the  facts,  that  while 
the  axioms  are  few,  deductions  are  countless  ;  and  in  any  one 
there  are  more  terms,  because  more  propositions  liable  to  mis- 
conception. But  I  do  assert  that,  in  a  valid  syllogism,  if 
the  major  and  minor  are  known  to  be  true,  and  the  terms  are 
all  fairly  comprehended,  the  belief  of  the  conclusion  by  the 
hearer  is  as  inevitable,  as  necessary,  as  univers^Il,  as  when  an 
axiom  is  stated.  Third  ;  though  in  many  deductions  the  evi- 
dence is  but  probable,  the  fact  that  there  is  probable  evidence, 
may  be  as  necessarily  admitted,  as  in  an  intuitive  and  positive 
truth. 

We  now  approach,  young  gentlemen,  that  great  class  of 

our  judgments  which  are  of  supreme  impor- 
Mm-;iJuclS'en?s'.  ""■    ^ance  in   theology,    as  in_  practical  life-the 

class  known  as  our  moral  judgments.  Lvery 
sane  man  is  conscious  of  acts  of  soul,  which  pronounce  certain 
rational  agents  right  or  wrong  in  certain  acts.  With  these 
right   or   wrong   acts    our   souls    unavoidably    conjoin    certain 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  97 

notions  and  feelings  of  obligation,  merit,  demerit,  approbation 
or  disapprobation,  and  desert  of  reward  or  penalty.  It  is  this 
peculiar  class  of  mental  states  which  constitutes  the  subject  of 
the  science  of  ethicks,  or  morals.  All  questions  as  to  the 
.nature  and  validity  of  moral  judgments  run  into  the  radical 
question,  as  to  their  origin.  Are  they  the  results  of  a  funda- 
mental and  intuitive  law  of  reason?  Or  are  they  artificial  or 
factitious  of  some  other  natural  principles  developed  into  a 
form  only  apparently  peculiar,  by  habit,  association,  or  train- 
ing ?  In  answering  this  all-important  question,  I  shall  pursue 
this  method,  to  set  aside  the  various  false  analyses,  until  we 
reach  the  true  one. 

The  Selfish  System,  presenting  itself  in  many  varied  forms 
from  Hobbes  (natural  desire  of  enjoyment 
ys  em.  ^^^jy  motive)  through  Mandeville  (the  desire 
of  being  applauded  is  the  moral  motive)  down  to  Paley,  has 
always  this  characteristic  :  it  resolves  our  idea  of  virtue  into 
self-interest.  Its  most  refined  form,  perhaps,  is  that  which  says, 
since  acts  of  benevolence,  sympathy,  justice,  are  found  to  be 
attended  with  an  immediate  inward  pleasure,  (self-approbation,) 
that  pleasure  is  the  motive  of  our  moral  acts.  We  discuss 
several  phases  together. 

I  remark,  that  on  the  selfish  system,  the  notion  of  right, 
Refuted.   1st.  By  in-    ^uty,    obligation,    free-agency,    could    never 
tuitive  Beliefs  of  Right    have  arisen  in  the  mind,  and  have  no  relev- 
and  Free-agency.  ancy    or    meaning.       Let    man    frame     the 

proposition.:  " That  which  furthers  self-interest  is  right;"  the 
very  employment  of  the  word  right  betrays  the  fact  that 
the  mind  recognizes  a  standard  other  than  that  of  self- 
interest.  And  any  analysis  of  the  notion  shows  that  it  is 
utterly  violated  and  falsified,  when  made  identical  with  self- 
interest.  Thus,  Hobbes  says,  each  man's  natural  right  is  to 
pursue  his  own  natural  self-interest  supremely.  But  according 
to  his  own  showing,  this  "  right "  in  A  implies  no  corresponding 
duty  in  him,  and  no  obligation  in  his  neighbour,  B,  to  respect 
it,  and  no  recognition  on  the  part  of  any  other.  Any  body 
has  a  " right "  to  prevent  A  from  having  his  "right."  Queer 
right  this ! 

If  interest  is  the  whole  motive,  then,  when  the  question 
arises,  whether  I  shall  do,  or  omit  a  certain  action,  you  cannot 
consistently  expect  me  to  consider  anything  but  this  :  whether 
or  not  the  doing  of  it  will  promote  my  own  advantage,  and 
that,  in  the  form  I  happen  to  prefer.  If  I  say,  "  This  result 
will  most  gratify  me,"  the  argument  is  at  an  end;  my  proposed 
act  is,  for  me,  right ;  there  is  no  longer  any  standard  of  uniform 
moral  distinction.  The  same  remark  shows  that  the  judgment 
of  obligation  to  a  given  act  is  then  baseless.  Attempt  to  apply 
any  of  those  arguments,  by  which  Epicureanism  attempts  to 
interpose  an  "ought  not"  between  a  man  and  any  natural  in- 

7* 


98  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

dulgence  ;  (as  this  :  "  This  sensual  pleasure  will  indeed  promote 
animal,  but  hinder  intellectual  pleasure,  which  is  higher.  And 
since  pleasure  is  the  rational  chief  good,  you  should  prefer  the 
more  to  the  less;")  the  reply  is :  "Animal  joys  are  to  me  larger 
than  intellectual ;"  and  the  ground  of  obligation  is  gone.  If  no 
indulgence  is  less  or  more  virtuous  than  any  other,  then  no 
possible  argument  of  obligation  can  be  constructed,  in  the  face 
of  an  existing  preference,  for  refraining  from  any.  If  the  sen- 
sualistic  psychology  is  true,  from  which  the  selfish  schemes 
proceed,  then  desire  for  natural  good,  which  they  make  the 
only  moral  motive,  is  a  passive  affection  of  the  soul.  It  is  no 
more  voluntary,  when  the  object  of  desire  is  presented,  than  is 
pain  when  you  are  struck,  or  a  chill  when  you  are  deluged  with 
cold  water.  Where,  now,  is  that  free-agency  which,  we  intui- 
tively feel,  is  rudimental  to  all  moral  action  and  responsibility  ? 
Man  is  no  longer  Self-directed  by  subjective,  rational  motives, 
but  drawn  hither  and  thither  like  a  puppet,  by  external  forces. 
But  if  not  a  free,  he  cannot  be  a  moral  agent.  Of  course,  also, 
there  is  no  longer  any  basis  for  any  judgment  of  merit  or 
demerit  in  acts,  or  any  moral  obligation  to  punishment.  Pen- 
alties become  the  mere  expedients  of  the  stronger  for  protecting 
their  own  selfishness.  And  as  this  is  as  true  of  the  future,  all 
religious  sanctions  are  at  an  end! 

This  theory  teaches  that  this  selfish  pleasure  apprehended 
2d.  From  Piece-  ^V  ^^^^  mind,  in  acquiring  an  object,  must  al- 
dence  of  Intuitive  De-  ways  be  the  motive  for  seeking  it.  The 
sire  to  Calculation.  analysis  is  false ;  desire  must  be   instinctive ; 

otherwise  man  could  not  have  his  first  volition  till  after  the  voli- 
tion had  put  him  on  the  way  of  experiencing  the  pleasant 
result  of  the  fruition !  Many  desires  are  obviously  instinctive  ; 
e.  g.,  curiosity.  Now,  since  the  self-pleasing  cannot  be  the 
original  element  of  the  desire,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  this  is 
our  element  of  rightness,  in  classifying  our  desires.  See  now, 
how  this  analysis  would  assign  the  effect  as  the  cause  of  its  own 
cause.  A  does  a  disinterested  act.  The  conciousness  of  hav- 
ing done  disinterestedly  gives  A  an  inward  pleasure.  This 
after-pleasure,  proceeding  from  the  consciousness  that  the  act 
was  unselfish,  prompted  to  the  act !  Thus  the  effect  caused  its 
own  cause  !  The  absurdity  of  the  scheme  is  further  proved  by 
this :  If  the  fact  that  a  disinterested  act  results  in  inward  satis- 
faction to  him  who  did  it,  proves  that  act  selfish ;  then  the  fact 
that  a  selfish  act  usually  results  in  inward  pain  to  him  who 
perpetrates  it,  proves  that  act  to  have  been  a  disinterested  one 
in  motive. 

If  the  selfish  theory  of  action  were  true,  the   adaptation  of 

3rd.   From  intuitive    another  person's  conduct  to  confer  personal 

Difference  of   advan-    advantage  on  US,  should  be  synonymous  with 

tage  and  merit.  merit  in  our  eyes.      The  villain  who  shared 

'vith  us  the  reward  of  his  misdeeds,  to  bribe  us  to  aid  or  ap- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  99 

plaud  him,  would  evoke  the  same  sentiment  of  gratitude,  as  the 
mother  who  blessed  us  with  her  virtuous  self-sacrifice ;  and 
there  would  be  no  generic  difference  between  the  hollow  flat- 
tery of  the  courtier  for  the  monster  on  whose  bounty  he 
fattened,  and  the  approbatioo  of  the  virtuous  for  patriotism  or 
benevolence. 

If  our  notion  of  good  acts  is  nothing  but  a  generalization 

4th.  From  Vividness  ^^  ^^^^  i^^^.  of  acts  promotive  of  our  self- 
of  Unsophisticated  interest,  he  who  has  most  experimental 
Moral  Sentiments.  knowledge  of  human  affairs  (i.  e.,  he  who  is 

most  hackneyed  in  this  world's  ways,)  must  have  the  clearest 
and  strongest  apprehensions  of  moral  distinctions ;  because  he 
would  most  clearly  apprehend  this  tendency  of  actions.  He 
who  was  wholly  inexperienced,  could  have  no  moral  distinctions. 
Is  this  so  ?  Do  we  not  find  the  most  unsophisticated  have  the 
most  vivid  moral  sympathies  ?  The  ignorant  child  in  the  nur- 
sery more  than  the  hackneyed  man  of  experience  ? 

But  the   crowning  absurdity  of  the  theory  appears  here  ; 

ah  From  Conscious-  that  our  consciousness  always  teaches  us,  that 
ness.  No  Merit  where  the  pleasure  we  have  in  well-doing  depends 
Self  reigns.  wholly   upon   our   feeling    that  the  virtuous 

act  had  no  reference  to  self;  and  the  moment  we  feel  that  self- 
pleasing  was  our  prime  motive,  we  feel  that  our  moral  pleasure 
therein  is  wholly  marred.  Indeed,  the  best  and  the  sufficient  . 
argument  against  this  miserable  theory  would,  perhaps,  be  the 
instinctive  loathing  and  denial  uttered  against  it  by  every  man's 
soul,  who  is  rightly  constituted.  The  honest  man  knows,  by 
his  immediate  consciousness,  that  when  he  does  right,  selfish- 
ness is  not  his  motive  ;  and  that  if  it  were,  he  would  be  utterly 
self-condemned.  As  Cousin  nervously  remarks :  Our  con- 
sciousness tells  us,  that  the  approbation  we  feel  for  disinterested 
virtue  is  wholly  disinterested,  and  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  feel 
it  unless  we  feel  that  the  agent  for  whom  we  feel  it  was  disin- 
terested in  this  act.  Thus,  a  thousand  things  in  the  acts,  the 
language,  and  the  consciousnesses  of  men  are  utterly  irrecon- 
cilable with  this  hateful  analysis,  and  show  it  to  be  as  unphilo- 
sophical  as  degrading.  Our  crowning  objection  is  found  in  its 
effect  on  our  view  of  the  divine  character.  That  which  is  man's 
finite  virtue  must  be  conceived  infinite,  as  constituting  the  virtue 
of  God,  (if  there  is  a  God.)  His  holiness  must  be  only  sove- 
reign self-interest ! 

In  the  next  place,  I  group  together  three  theories  of  the 
nature  of  virtue,  which  really  amount  to  the 
■ick""  ^^^^'''"■'^''  ^*"  same  ;  that  of  David  Hume,  who  taught  that 
an  act  is  apprehended  by  us  as  virtuous, 
because  it  is  seen  to  be  useful  -to  mankind ;  that  of  Jeremy 
Bentham,  who  taught  that  whatever  conduct  is  conducive  to 
the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number,  is  right ;  and  that  of 
some  New  England  divines  and  philosophers,  who  teach  that 


lOO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

virtue  consists  in  benevolence.  The  latter  is  practically  synon- 
ymous with  the  two  former.  For  the  practical  expression  of 
benevolence  is  beneficence.  This  theory  of  virtue  is  a  natural 
off-shoot  of  Jonathan  Edwards'  theory  of  virtue.  This  great 
and  good  man  would  probably  be  shocked  to  have  his  specula- 
tion, as  to  "  the  nature  of  true  virtue,"  classed  with  those  of  the 
infidel,  utilitarian  school.  But  the  historical  development  of  it 
since  his  death,  proves  the  justice  of  the  charge.  It  is,  more- 
over, so  interesting  an  exposition  of  the  unavoidable  tenden- 
cies of  the  "  Benevolence  Theory,"  and  has  so  important 
relations  to  existing  errors  in  theology,  that  I  must  ask  you  to 
pause  a  moment  to  consider  Edwards'  view. 

As    is  suggested  by  the   Rev'd   Ro.    Hall,   Edwards  was 

probably  impelled  to  this  piece  of  false  anal- 

^  Edwards'  Theory  of   ^.^^^^  ^^  j^jg  j^^^  ^f  simplifying.     His  desire 

was  to  unify  the  ultimate  principles  of  the 
rational  spirit,  as  much  as  possible.  Hence,  instead  of  regard- 
ing virtuous  acts  and  states  of  soul  as  an  ultimate  and  inde- 
pendent category,  he  teaches  that  they  all  most  essentially 
consist  in  "  Benevolence  to  Being  in  General,"  meaning,  of 
course,  rational  being,  or,  "  love  to  being  in  general."  And 
this  love,  which  is  the  essence  of  all  virtue,  he  expressly  defines 
as  the  love  of  benevolence  only,  as  distinct  from  the  love  of 
moral  complacency.  This  is  essential  to  his  system  ;  for,  as  he 
himself  argues,  the  love  of  moral  complacency  must  imply 
moral  beauty  in  its  object.  The  perception  of  moral  beauty 
generates  the  love  which  is  moral  complacency.  If  the  love 
which  constitutes  moral  beauty  were  that  moral  complacency, 
Edwards  argues  that  we  should  make  a  thing  its  own  parent. 
Of  this,  more  anon.  He  then  proceeds  :  "  The  first  object  of 
virtuous  benevolence  is  Being,  simply  considered  ;"  and  hence  : 
"  Being  in  general  is  its  object."  That  to  which  its  ultimate 
propensity  tends  is  "the  highest  good  of  being  in  general." 
From  this  conclusion,  Edwards  draws  this  corollary :  There 
may  be  a  benevolence  towards  a  particular  Being,  which  is 
virtuous,  because  that  particular  Being  is  a  part  of  the  aggre- 
gate, general  being  ;  but  the  affection  is  virtuous,  only  provided 
it  consists  with  the  "  highest  good  of  being  in  general."  Again  : 
That  being  who  has  the  greatest  quantum  of  existence  must 
attract  the  largest  share  of  this  benevolence.  Hence,  we  must 
love  God  more  than  all  creatures,  because  He  is  infinite  in  the 
dimensions  of  His  existence  ;  and  we  ought,  among  creatures, 
to  love  a  great  and  good  man  proportionably  more  than  one 
less  able  and  full  of  being.  The  grounds  of  proof  on  which 
Edwards  seems  to  rest  his  conclusion  are  these :  That  every 
judgment  of  beauty,  of  every  kind,  is  analysable  into  a  percep- 
tion of  order  and  harmony ;  but  the  most  beautiful  and  lofty  of 
all  rational  harmonies  is  this  concent  or  benevolence  of  an  in- 
telligent  Being  to   all   like    Being :     That  the   Scriptures  say 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  lOI 

"  God  is  love  ;"  and  "  Love  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  whole  law  " 
between  man  and  his  neighbour :  And  that  this  theoty  explains 
so  well  the  superior  claims  of  God  to  our  love,  over  creatures' 
claims  to  our  love. 

The  transition  between  this  plausible,  but  most  sophistical 

speculation,  and  the  utilitarian  scheme,  and 
Ethfcf '  '°  Utihtanan    ^^^-^^  ^^  expediency,  which  underlie  the  New 

England  Theology,  of  our  day,  is  found  in 
the  writings  of  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  (and  "  the  younger  Ed- 
wards.") In  their  hands,  "  Love  to  Being  in  General,"  became 
simply  the  affection  of  benevolence ;  and  the  theor}^  became 
this  :  That  benevolence  is  all  virtue,  and  all  virtue  is  benevo- 
lence. I  have  already  disclosed  the  affinity  of  this  theory  to 
the  utilitarian,  by  the  simple  remark,  that  beneficence  is  the 
practical  expression  of  benevolence.  Hence,  when  he  who  has 
defined  virtue  as  benevolence,  comes  to  treat  of  virtue  as  a 
practical  principle,  he  makes  nothing  else  of  it  than  Jeremy 
Bentham's  "greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number."  We  shall 
detect  Dr.  Hopkins  adopting  this,  and  even  the  most  thoroughly 
selfish  theory  of  virtue,  in  carrying  out  his  benevolence-scheme, 
with  an  amusing  candour,  simplicity  and  inconsistency. 

Proceeding  to  the  refutation  of  Edwards'  scheme,   I  begin - 

with  his  Scriptures.     The  same  logic  which 

infers  it  from  the  expression,  "  God  is  love," 
would  infer  from  the  text,  "  God  is  light,"  that  He  is  nothing 
but  pure  intelligence ;  and  from  the  text,  "  Our  God  is  a  con- 
suming fire,"  that  He  is  nothing  but  vindicatory  justice.  All 
Scriptures  must  be  interpreted  consistently.  Neither  can  we 
overstrain  the  declarations  of  our  Saviour  and  the  apostle,  that 
"  love  fulfils  the  whole  law  "  between  man  and  man,  into  the 
theory  that  benevolence  is  the  whole  essence  of  virtue.  The 
proposition  of  the  Scripture  contains  a  beautiful  practical  fact: 
that  the  virtue  of  love  (which,  in  Scripture  nomenclature,  in- 
cludes far  more  than  benevolence)  prompts  to  all  other  virtues. 
I. exclude  the  overstrained  inference  by  simply  referring  to  the 
other  passages  of  Scripture,  which  expressly  name  other  dis- 
tinguishable virtues  in  addition  to  love.  "  Now  abideth  faith, 
hope,  love  :  these  three  :  but  the  greatest  of  these  is  love." — 
I  Cor.  xiii :  13.  "Add  to  your  faith  virtue,  and  to  virtue 
knowledge,  and  to  knowledge  temperance,  and  to  temperance 
patience,  and  to  patience  godliness,  and  to  godliness  brotherly 
kindness,  and  to  brotherly  kindness  love." — 2  Pet.  i  :  $>  ^^ 
When  the  Scriptures  declare  love  to  God  the  great  Command- 
ment, they  mean  a  very  different  thing  from  Edwards'  benevo- 
lence to  Being;  "a  propensity  to  its  highest  good."  The 
supreme  object  of  holy  love  in  the  Scriptures  is  always  God's 
holiness.  The  affection  is  as  distinct  from  mere  benevolence, 
as  adoration  from  kindness.  The  love  of  the  Scriptures,  in 
which  all  man's  holiness  centres,  is  the  attraction  of  the  whole 


I02  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

soul,  in  all   its  active  principles,  towards  all  that  is  pure  and 

venerable,  and  righteous  and  true,  as  well  as  good,  in  the  divine 

character. 

To  Edwards'  speculative  grounds,  I  reply,  1st.   His  ground- 

.         ing  of   moral  virtue  in  a  harmony  or  order 

Moral  Beauty  Unique.  -j-         i.^.     ^      •         i-j  .       c 

■'        '■       perceived,   is  utterly  invalid  as  a  support  of 

his  theory,  unless  he  holds  that  aesthetic  beauty,  logical  pro- 
priety and  moral  praiseworthiness,  are  all  genericall}'  the  same 
beauty,  only  differing  in  degree.  For  if  not,  the  order  and 
harmony  whose  perception  gives  the  feeling  of  virtuousness, 
are  a  different  kind;  and  Edwards,  as  much  as  I,  is  bound  to 
answer  the  question :  In  what  does  moral  beauty  differ  from 
the  sesthetic  and  the  logical  ?  I  can  answer  consistently :  In 
conformity  to  a  peculiar,  original  intuition,  that  of  conscience. 
Indeed,  the  fact  that  every  sane  mind  intuitively  perceives  that 
difference,  is,  of  itself,  a  sufficient  refutation  of  Edwards'  and 
of  every  other  false  analysis  of  the  moral  sentiment. 

We  have  seen  that  Edwards  regards  the  love  of  benevo- 
„  ,       ,  ,         ,  lence,  not  the  love  of  moral  complacency,  as 

Ldwards   parodox.        ,,  .  r-,  iti'i 

the  primary  essence  oi  virtue :  and  1  showed 
you  the  argument  which  led  him  to  this  consistent  conclusion. 
The  love  of  complacency,  then,  is  love  to  a  rational  agent  on 
account  of  his  love  of  benevolence ;  and  the  former  is  not 
primarily  of  the  essence  of  virtue.  That  is  :  it  is  not  virtuous 
to  love  virtue  !  It  is  true  that  on  a  subsequent  page,  he  retracts 
this  absurdity ;  availing  himself  virtually  of  a  theory  of  sym- 
pathy between  the  virtuous  (or  benevolent)  agent  and  the 
approving  spectator,  to  argue  what  he  had  before  disproved. 
This  is  but  the  anticipation  of  the  vicious  analysis  of  Adam 
Smith.  By  a  parallel  process,  Edwards'  principles  should  lead 
him  to  conclude  that  disinterested  gratitude  is  not  virtuous. 
Saith  he,  "the  first  benevolence  cannot  be  gratitude."  True;, 
for  this  first  benevolence  must  regard  its  object  simply  as  being,, 
not  as  beneficent.  Hence,  for  me  to  love  a  being  because  he 
has  been  a  benefactor  to  me,  is  not  virtue !  Edwards,  in  a  sub- 
sequent chapter,  resolves  gratitude  into  self-love,  but  he  is  not 
thereby  designing  to  depreciate  the  affection  of  gratitude,  for 
in  the  same  chapter  he  analyses  the  judgments  and  emotions 
of  conscience  into  the  same  self-love ! 

We  have  seen  that  Edwards  makes  the  essence  of  virtue  to 

be  "  love  to  being  in  general."  Another  fatal 
th'oiIjSrof'vKue?"   Objection  to  this  is,  that  it  assigns  us  as  the 

object  of  every  virtuous  affection,  a  mere 
abstraction,  a  general  idea.  Whereas,  if  consciousness  tells 
you  anything  clearly  of  your  moral  sentiments,  it  is  that  their 
objects  must  be  personal.  Only  a  person  can  oblige  us  to  a 
duty.  Only  a  person  can  be  the  object  of  a  right.  Pantheism, 
as  we  saw,  abolishes  morality  by  obliterating  the  personality 
of  God.     Edwards'  speculation  would  do  it  as  effectually,  in 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  IO3 

another  way.  Again,  says  Edwards,  love  to  a  particular  being 
is  compatible  with  the  definition  of  virtue  as  consisting  in  "  love 
to  being  in  general,"  provided  the  particular  affection  is  con- 
sistent with  the  highest  good  of  being  in  general.  But  I  object 
again ;  this  proviso  is  one  which  cannot  be  practically  ascer- 
tained, by  ordinary  moral  agents,  in  one  of  ten  thousand  cases 
in  which  they  are  called  to  act  morally  towards  a  particular 
object.  The  motive  of  the  peasant-mother  may  be  virtuous, 
when  she  forsakes  the  industrial  avocation  which  she  was 
pursuing,  promotive  of  the  public  good,  to  nurse  her  own  sick 
and  dying  child,  provided  she  has  successfully  calculated  the 
preponderance  of  the  resultant  general  benefit  of  the  nursing 
over  the  industry!  I  object  farther,  that  this  theory  might  lead 
a  man  to  the  breach  of  a  nearer,  and  therefore  more  obligatory 
duty,  for  the  sake  of  one  remoter,  and  therefore  less  obligatory. 
The  son  would  be  bound  to  rescue  a  great  and  gifted  stranger 
from  fire  or  water,  in  preference  to  his  own  father,  because  the 
great  man  presented  to  his  love  a  greater  qjiantiini  of  existence. 
I  object  again;  that  on  Edwards'  theory  it  might  be  impos- 
sible to  explain  how  it  is  our  duty  to  honor  a  dead  man  for  his 
virtues.  He  is  beyond  the  reach  of  our  benevolence  ;  he  can 
be  neither  benefited  nor  pleased  by  our  plaudits.  And  espec- 
ially is  it  impossible,  on  this  theor>%  to  include  God  directly  in 
our  virtuous  affections.  Remember,  the  essence  of  all  virtue 
with  him  is  that  simple  love  of  benevolence,  whose  propension 
is  to  promote  the  highest  good  of  being  in  general.  But  God 
is  infinitely  blessed  ;  His  good  cannot  be  promoted  by  creatures. 
Does  this  not  obviously  exempt  Him  from  our  benevolence  ? 
Edwards  answers  this  laboriously,  by  pleading  that  our  homage 
can  promote  God's  declarative  glory ;  the  Scriptures  exhort  us 
to  love,  adore  and  praise  Him.  This  is  true,  but  the  Scriptures 
ground  these  duties  of  love  and  adoration  expressly  upon  God's 
moral  perfections.  It  is  these,  not  existence,  which  constitute 
Him  the  object  of  our  moral  homage  This  fact  alone  overthrows 
Edwards'  whole  speculation. 

All  benevolence-schemes  tacitly  assume  the  validity  of 
the  a  priori  moral  intuition,  with  which  they 
ass^umer'^^^'"^^'''"'  propose  to  dispense.  For,  suppose  an  advo- 
cate of  the  sensual  selfish  system  to  demand 
of  their  advocates  :  "  Why  is  it  my  duty  to  make  the  greatest 
good  of  the  greatest  number  my  chief  end,  instead  of  my  own 
personal  good?"  The  respondent  could  find  no  answer,  with- 
out resorting  to  the  original  distinction  of  advantage  from  right, 
and  the  obligation  to  the  latter. 

The  most  mischievous  part  of  Edwards'  scheme  I  conceive 

to    be,  his    derivation  of  the  judgments  and 

leme  s     s  .     gj^otions  of  conscience  itself,   from  general 

self-love.     As  that  direct  and  simple  love  of  benevolence,  which 

is   the   pure   essence   of  virtue,  is  concent  and   harmony   with 


I04  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

general  being,  as  being ;  so  self-love,  according  to  Edwards,  is 
a  propension  towards  the  concent  and  harmony  or  unity  of  one's 
own  being.  The  former  principle  tends  to  unite  the  individual 
with  general  Being.  Hence  the  consciousness  of  an  affection 
tending  to  break  that  benevolent  unison,  disunites  the  man's 
own  being  within  itself  Self-love  then  produces  the  judgment 
and  pain  of  remorse ;  for  this  pain  is  nothing  but  the  sense  of 
the  breach  of  that  self-unity,  which  is  self-love's  main  object. 
Thus  it  follows  that  the  sentiments  of  conscience,  (like  gratitude) 
are  only  of  secondary  rank  in  ethics  !  By  this  ill-starred  logical 
jugglery  is  that  imperial  faculty  degraded,  whose  intuitions  and 
affections  are  the  very  spring-head  of  all  the  ethical  acts  of  the 
human  soul,  and  made  an  inferior  consequence  of  the  virtuous 
principle ;  a  consequence  of  its  defect,  a  modification  of  self- 
love.  It  would  follow,  of  course,  that  the  perfect  man  might 
be  too  virtuous  to  have  any  conscience  at  all.  It  is  simpler 
reasoning  still,  to  conclude  as  many  of  Edwards'  followers  have 
done,  from  his  premises;  that,  as  simple  benevolence  is  virtue, 
self-love  is  sin.  [And  thus  would  come  about  that  marvelous 
interpretation,  which  is  one  of  the  most  recent  triumphs  of  the 
New  England  theology;  when  in  expounding  Gen.  3:  22,  it  tells 
us  that  Adam  and  Eve  acquired  a  knowledge  of  moral  distinc- 
tions only  by  their  fall.  For,  conscience  is  a  development  of 
the  principle  of  self-love,  as  Edwards  teaches ;  and  self-love  is 
the  essence  of  sin,  as  the  moderns  say :  whence  it  follows,  that 
man  acquires  his  moral  nature  only  by  his  immorality. 

These  fatuous  absurdities  Edwards  was  too  shrewd  to  adopt. 

He  does  not  teach,  as  his   premises   should 

Sin  and  self-love  yet    ^^^^^  taught  him,  that  self-love  is  sin.    Indeed, 

not  identical.  .  o       ,  .      '         .        ,  ,  ' 

m  a  part  01  his  treatise,  he  adopts  the  correct 
analysis  of  Bp.  Butler,  as  to  this  affection.  Inform  yourselves 
of  that  analysis  in  his  sermons,  from  the  nth  to  the  14th,  He 
there  teaches  us,  with  his  customary  profound  simplicity,  the 
true  testimony  of  our  consciousness  ;  That  benevolence  and 
self-love  are  in  fact  distinguishable,  but  not  opposite  affections 
of  the  soul  (as  is  so  often  popularly  assumed) ;  That  instead  of 
being  universally  opposed,  they  often  co-operate  as  motives  to 
the  same  act ;  That  the  act  thus  educed  may  be  either  virtuous 
or  vicious,  according  to  its  conditions  ;  That  both  benevolence 
and  self-love  are  so  far  in  the  same  moral  categories,  that  noto- 
riously, some  acts  of  simple  self-love,  (as  when  a  man  directly 
seeks  his  own  calculated  but  lawful,  or  obligatory  personal 
good)  and  many  acts  of  benevolence  are  virtuous ;  and  that 
many  acts  of  self-love  (as  when  a  man  prefers  his  own  mis- 
chievous animal  pleasure),  and  many  acts  of  disinterestedness 
(as  when  a  man  deliberately  injures  himself  for  the  sake  of 
revenge),  are  vicious.  From  these  clear  statements  it  follows 
obviously,  that  the  benevolent  cannot  be  exalted  into  the 
universal  essence  of  virtue,  nor  the  selfish  into  that  of  sin. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  IO5 

These  theories  derive  all  the  plausibility  of  their  sophistries 
What  has  suggested  from  three  facts.  It  has  been  so  often  said, 
these  B  ene  vol  en  ce  that  "Honesty  is  the  best  policy,"  that  men 
schemes.  come  to  think  the   goodness  of  the  policy  is 

what  makes  it  honest ;  To  promote  utility,  or,  in  other  words, 
to  do  acts  of  beneficence  to  mankind,  is,  in  a  multitude  of 
cases,  right  and  praiseworthy  ;  The  duties  of  benevolence  are 
duties,  and  a  very  extensive  class  thereof;  but  not,  therefore, 
exhaustive  of  all  duties.  Once  more,  in  the  business  of  legis- 
lation, the  expedient  is  very  much  the  guide ;  and  crimes  are 
punished  chiefly  in  proportion  to  their  tendency  to  injure  the 
well-doing  of  society.  This  might  easily  deceive  one  who,  like 
Bentham,  was  far  more  of  a  legislator  than  philosopher,  to  sup- 
pose that  he  had  found,  in  the  beneficence  of  acts,  the  essential 
element  of  their  virture.  He  forgets  that  human  laws  propose 
as  their  proximate  end  only  the  protection  of  human  well-being 
in  this  world ;  and  not  the  accurate  final  apportionment  of 
merits.     This  is  God's  function  alone. 

The    utilitarian    schemes    of    ethics    profess    to    stand    in 

,^  ,   .   ^       contrast  to  the  selfish,  because  they  propose 
1st.  It  IS  selfish,  m fact.         .     >i  ir  i  j       r    i.i  1    \     J_^^ 

not  the   selfish   good  01    the   agent,  but   the 

well-being  of  mankind,  as  the  element  and -test  of  virtue.  But 
they  would  really  involve,  as  Jouffroy  argues,  the  vice  of  the 
selfish  systems,  if  consistently  carried  out  to  their  last  result. 
For  when  the  question  is  raised,  "  Why  do  men  come  to  regard 
the  utile  as  the  right?"  the  answer  must  be,  because  well-being 
(natural  enjoyment)  is  the  properest  end  of  man.  But  thence 
it  must  follow,  that  desire  of  natural  good  is  man's  properest 
motive  of  action.  Thus  the  moral  motive  is  as  effectually  left 
out  of  the  analysis  as  by  Hobbes  himself;  and  the  same  absurd 
psychology  is  assumed,  which  makes  desire  for  natural  good 
the  result  of  experienced  good,  whereas  the  desire  must  act 
first,  or  the  good  would  never  have  come  to  be  experienced. 
But  more ;  if  desire  for  natural  good  is  man's  properest  motive 
of  action,  it  must  follow,  that  his  own  personal  good  must 
always  be  the  properest  end  of  moral  action ;  because  this 
must  always  be  the  nearest,  most  immediate  object  of  the 
natural  desire.  These  schemes  make  aggregate  humanity  the 
supreme  object  of  moral  action  ;  the  true  God.  But  the  individ- 
ual agent  is  a  part  of  that  aggregate  ;  a  part  of  his  own  God ! 
And  as  he  is  the  most  attainable  part — the  only  part  for  whose 
natural  welfare  he  can  labour  effectually — I  see  not  how  the 
practical  conclusion  is  to  be  avoided  ;  that  he  is  his  own  prop- 
erest supreme  end.  Thus  we  are  led  back  to  the  vilest  results 
of  the  selfish  system ;  and  such,  experience  teaches  us,  is  the 
practical  tendency.  While  the  utilitarian  schemes  profess  great 
beneficence,  they  make  their  votaries  supremely  politic  and 
selfish. 

But  farther ;  the  scheme  does  not  correctly  state  the  facts 


I06  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  our  consciousness.     The   mind  does  not 

./.\  ^S'Kh^tri^n'  feel  that  obhgation  to  an  act  is  always  its 
scious  rule  oi  obligation.  ...        °        ,  -  ,     -^     , 

mere  utility  or  beneficence,  nor  that  the 
merit  of  the  agent  arises  out  of  the  advantage  his  act  effects. 
How  often,  for  instance,  do  questions  arise,  as  to  the  obligation 
of  speaking  truth  ;  where,  if  utility  were  the  element  of  obli- 
gation, none  would  be  felt ;  yet  the  mind  would  feel  most 
guilty,  had  falsehood  been  uttered  in  the  case.  Again  ;  were 
utility  the  element  of  virtue,  the  rightness  or  wrongness  of  an 
act  would  only  be  apprehended  so  far  as  experience  had  given 
us  knowledge  as  to  the  beneficence  or  mischievousness  of  its 
effects.  Is  this  so  ?  Does  not  the  conscience  lash  us  for  secret 
sins  which  leave  no  loss  of  reputation,  health,  or  capacity  behind 
them  ;  and  lash  us  all  the  more  promptly  and  keenly,  as  we  are 
inexperienced  of  crime  and  its  wretched  consequences?  Far- 
ther ;  were  this  theory  true,  all  truly  useful  things  should  affect 
us  with  similar  sentiments  of  moral  approbation,  a  convenient 
bureau,  or  good  milch  cow,  as  truly  as  a  faithful  friend,  or  a 
benevolent  rescuer.  Does  Hume  attempt  to  escape  by  saying 
that  it  is  the  rational  and  voluntary  useful  act  which  affects  us 
with  the  sentiment  of  approbation  ?  Then,  we  reply,  he  has 
given  up  the  case  ;  for  evidently  the  morality  of  the  act  is  not  in 
its  utility,  but  in  its  rational  motive.  Once  more  ;  if  utility  is  the 
sole  element  of  virtue,  then  the  degree  of  utility  should  also  be 
the  measure  of  virtuous  merit.  We  should  alwa}-s  feel  those 
acts  to  be  most  meritorious  which  were  most  conducive  to  natu- 
ral good.  But  do  we  ?  e.  g.  Which  ennobles  Daniel  most  in 
our  eyes :  the  heroism  which  refused  to  bow  his  conscience  to 
an  impious  prohibition  of  his  king,  when  the  penalty  was  the 
lions'  den,  or  the  diligence  which  dispensed  order  and  prosperity 
over  one  hundred  and  twenty  provinces  ?  And  the  extravagant 
conclusions  of  Godwin  must  be  accepted — that  duties  must  be 
graded  by  us  in  proportion  to  the  public  importance  of  the 
person  who  was  their  object;  so  that  it  might  be  the  son's  duty 
to  see  his  own  father  drown,  in  order  to  save  some  more  valu- 
able life,  who  is  a  stranger  to  him. 

Were  the  utilitarian  scheme  true,  it  might  be  in  some  cases  ut- 
T,d.   If  so    we  mio-ht  terly  impossible  to  convince  a  man  that  it  was 
"do  evil  that  good  may  immoral  to  "  do  evil  that  good  might  come." 
'^°'"'^-"  If  the  consequences  of  the  evil  act,  so  far  as 

foreseen  by  his  mind,  seemed  beneficial,  it  would  be  right  to  do 
it.  Nor  could  the  claims  of  retributive  justice  in  many  cases 
be  substantiated;  the  criminal  who  gave,  by  his  penitence,  suf- 
ficient guarantee  that  he  would  offend  no  more,  could  not  be 
made,  without  immorality,  to  pay  his  debt  of  guilt.  And  above 
all,  eternal  retributions  would  be  utterly  indefensible  in  a  God  of 
infinite  wisdom  and  power.  How  can  they  advantage  the  universe^ 
including  the  sufferers,  as  much  as  their  pardon  and  thorough 
conversion  would  benefit  them,  without  injuring  the  rest? 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  lO/ 

Paley's  type   of  the    Selfish    System    may  be  said  to   be 

,    ^  ,    ,      ,  equally  perspicuous  and  false.     That  such  a 

4th.  Paley  s  scheme.  •  c  •  ^  i  i  •  •         i  • 

^  specimen  oi  impotency  and   sophism  m  phi- 

losophy should  come  from  a  mind  capable  of  so  much  justice 
and  perspicuity  of  reasoning,  as  he  has  exhibited  in  the  experi- 
mental field  of  Natural  Theology,  is  one  of  the  most  curious 
facts  in  the  history  of  opinion.  I  shall  first  attempt  to  rebut 
the  objections  which  he  insinuates  against  the  originality  of 
moral  perceptions,  and  then  criticise  his  own  theory. 

.  He  first  proposes  to  test  the  question,  whether  such  dis- 
tinctions are  originally  and  intuitively  per- 
mo'^Ifji^gmS.^''^"^  ceived,  by  supposing  a  case  of  what  we  call 
odious  filial  treachery,  stated  to  a  mind  per- 
fectly untutored  by  human  associations,  example,  and  teaching; 
and  asking  us  whether  he  would  immediately  feel  its  vileness, 
with  us.  We  answer,  of  course.  No.  But  to  show  how  ab- 
surdly preposterous  the  test  is,  we  need  not,  with  Dr.  Alex- 
ander, dwell  on  the  complexity  of  the  moral  problem  involved. 
The  simple  answer  is,  that  such  a  mind  would  not  have  the 
moral  sentiment,  because  he  would  not  comprehend  the  relations 
out  of  which  the  violated  obligations  grew,  nor  the  very  words 
used,  to  state  them.  In  no  proper  sense  could  the  untutored 
mind  be  said  to  see  the  case.  Now,  what  a  paltry  trick  is  it, 
to  argue  that  a  mind  has  not  a  power  of  comparison,  because 
it  cannot  compare  objects  which  it  does  not  behold  at  all  ? 

Paley  insinuates  (none  of  his  objections  to  moral  intuitions 
are   stated  boldly)  that  our  notions   of  the 

ass'^So?  '^'^'''  ^°  '"o^^^  ^^y  ^^^  ^^  accounted  for  by  associ- 
ation and  imitation.  Thus,  "  having  noticed 
that  certain  actions  produced,  or  tended  to  produce,  good  con- 
sequences, whenever  those  actions  are  spoken  of,  they  suggest, 
by  the  law  of  association,  the  pleasing  idea  of  the  good  they 
are  wont  to  produce.  What  association  begins,  imitation 
strengthens  ;  this  habit  of  connecting  a  feeling  of  pleasure  with 
classes  of  acts  is  confirmed  by  similar  habits  of  thought  and 
feeling  around  us,  and  we  dub  it  the  sentiment  of  moral  appro- 
bation." (Borrowed  from  Hume.)  Now,  this  analysis  is  shown 
to  be  worthless  in  this  one  word.  The  law  of  association  does 
not  transmute,  but  only  reproduces,  the  mental  states  connected 
by  it.  How,  then,  can  the  feeling  of  pleasure,  which  begins 
from  a  perceived  tendency  in  a  class  of  acts  to  promote  natura' 
good,  he  changed  by  association  into  the  pleasure  of  moral 
approbation  ?  They  are  distinct  enough  at  first.  Again :  How, 
on  this  scheme,  could  men  ever  come  to  have  pain  of  conscience 
at  sins  which  are  naturally  pleasurable,  and  attended  with  no 
m.ore  direct  natural  ill?  And  how  could  the  fact  ever  be 
explained,  that  we  often  have  the  sentiment  of  remorse  for 
doing  something  in  comphance  with  general  associations  and 
imitation  ? 


I08  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Another  class  of  objections  is  drawn  from  the  facts  that 
Obiects,  that   they    ^^^  ^^"^^  "°  innate  ideas  of  the  abstract  ele- 
are  not  referable  to  any    ment  of    moral   right;    and   that   moralists, 
shnpler  type.  though    asserting    the    instinctive    origin    of 

moral  perceptions,  have  never  been  able  to  point  to  any  one 
type,  or  simple  abstract  element,  (as  veracity,  &c.,)  into  which 
all  moral  acts  might  be  resolved.  After  our  criticism  of  Locke, 
no  farther  answer  will  be  needed  to  the  first  objection.  The 
second,  when  examined,  will  be  found  to  be  a  bald  begging  of 
the  question.  The  question  is,  whether  the  Tightness  of  acts  is 
an  original  perception  of  the  human  reason.  Now,  if  it  be,  it 
will  of  course  follow  that  it  cannot  be  referred  to  some  more 
general  type  of  perception.  Can  this  general  idea,  a  truth,  be 
analysed  ?  Why  not  ?  Because  it  is  already  simple  and  pri- 
mary. Who  dreams  of  arguing  now  that  the  human  reason  has 
no  original  capacity  of  perceiving  truth  in  propositions,  because 
it  has  no  more  general  and  abstract  type,  into  which  the  sorts 
of  truth  in  different  classes  of  propositions  may  be  referred  ? 
So,  of  the  idea  of  rightness. 

Paley  also  borrows  the  common  argument  of  objectors, 
from  the  wide  variety,  and  even  contrariety 
And  vaua   e,  ^£-  ^^^^0.1  opinions  in  different  ages  and  na- 

tions. In  one  nation,  filial  duty  is  supposed  to  consist  in  nursing 
an  aged  parent ;  in  another  land,  in  eating  him,  &c.,  &c.  The 
answers  are,  that  no  one  ever  pretended  any  human  faculty  was 
perfect  in  its  actings,  however  original.  Habit  and  association, 
example,  passion,  have  great  influence  in  perverting  any  faculty. 
Next,  as  justly  remarked  by  Dr.  Alexander,  many  of  the  sup- 
posed cases  of  contrariety  of  moral  judgments  are  fully  ex- 
plained by  the  fact,  that  the  dictate  of  conscience,  right  in  the 
general,  is  perverted  by  some  error  or  ignorance  of  the  under- 
standing. The  Christian  mother  feels  it  her  duty  to  cherish  the 
life  of  her  infant ;  the  Hindoo  to  drown  hers  in  Holy  Ganges  ! 
True.  Yet  both  act  on  the  dictate  of  conscience— that  a  mother 
should  seek  the  highest  good  of  her  infant.  The  Hindoo  has 
been  taught  by  her  false  creed,  to  believe  that  she  does  this  by 
transferring  it  in  childhood  to  heaven.  Once  more;  it  is  a  most 
erroneous  conclusion  to  infer  that,  because  men  perform,  in  some 
countries,  what  are  here  regarded  as  odious  vices,  with  seeming 
indifference  and  publicity,  therefore  their  moral  sentiments 
about  them  do  not  agree  with  ours.  An  educated  Hindoo  will 
lie  for  a  penny,  and,  when  detected,  laugh  at  it  as  smart.  A  Hot- 
tentot woman  will  seem  shameless  in  her  lewdness.  Yet  we  are 
informed  that  the  Hindoo  reverences  and  admires  the  truthful- 
ness of  a  Christianized  Briton ;  and  that  the  poor  Hottentot 
scorns  the  unchaste  European  missionary,  just  as  any  female 
here  would.  The  amount  of  the  case  is,  that  conscience  may 
be  greatly  stupefied  or  drowned  by  evil  circumstances ;  but  her 
general  dictates,  so  far  as  heard,  are  infallibly  uniform. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  IO9 

Paley,  having  succeeded,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  in  proving 

that  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  of  moral 
duty?! c!  '^'^"'"°"  °^    intuitions  existing   in   the  human   soul,  gives 

his  own  definition.  "  Virtue  is  doing  good  to 
mankind,  according  to  the  will  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  everlast- 
ing happiness."  And  moral  obligation,  he  defines,  as  nothing 
else  than  a  forcible  motive  arising  out  of  a  command  of  another. 
That  this  scheme  should  ever  have  seemed  plausible  to  Chris- 
tians, can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  we  intuitively 
feel,  when  a  God  is  properly  apprehended,  that  His  will  is  a  per- 
fect rule  of  right ;  and  that  it  is  moral  to  do  all  His  commands. 
But  when  we  raise  the  question,  why  ?  the  answer  is,  because 
His  will,  like  His  character,  is  holy.  To  do  His  will,  then,  is 
not  obligatory  merely  because  an  Almighty  has  commanded  it;, 
but  He  has  commanded  it  because  it  is  obligatory.  The  dis- 
tinction of  right  and  wrong  is  intrinsic. 

The  objections  to  Paley's   system  are  patent.     He  himself 

raises    the   question,  wherein  virtue,    on   his 
Objections.  The  sys-    definition,    differs    from    a    prudent    self-love 
tem  a  seliish  one.  .  ii-  tt-  -ii 

m  temporal  thmgs.     His  answer  is,  the  latter 

has  regard  only  to  this  life ;  the  former  considers  also  future 
immortal  well-being.  Brown  well  observes  of  this,  that  it  is  but 
a  more  odious  refinement  upon  the  selfish  system;  defiling 
man's  very  piety,  by  making  it  a  selfish  trafficking  for  personal 
advantage  with  God,  and  fostering  a  more  gigantic  moral 
egotism,  insomuch  as  immortality  is  longer  than  mortal  life.  All 
the  objections  leveled  against  the  selfish  system  by  me,  apply, 
therefore,  justly  here.  This  scheme  of  Paley  is  equally  false  to 
our  consciousness,  which  tells  us  that  when  we  act,  in  all  relative 
duties,  with  least  reference  to  self,  then  we  are  most  praise- 
worthy. 

But  we  may  add,  more  especially,  that  on  Paley's  scheme 

of  obligation,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  he  could 
Force   may    iustify     j  1.1^.^.1  u        • 

J  .»    J       /    deny  that  there  may    be,  in  some  cases,  as 

real  a  moral  obligation  to  do  wrong,  as  to  do 
right.  A  company  of  violent  men  overpower  me,  and  command 
me,  on  pain  of  instant  death,  to  burn  down  my  neighbor's 
dwelling.  Here  is  "a  forcible  motive  arising  from  the  com- 
mand of  another."  Why  does  it  not  constitute  a  moral  obliga- 
tion to  the  crime  ?  Paley  would  reply,  because  God  commands 
me  not  to  burn  it,  on  pain  of  eternal  death  ;  and  this  obligation 
destroys  the  other,  because  the  motive  is  vastly  more  forcible. 
It  seems,  then,  that  in  God's  case,  it  is  His  might  which  makes- 
His  right. 

Once  more.     On  Paley's  scheme,  there  could  be  no  morality 
nor  moral  obligation,  where  there  is  no  revel- 
No  obligation  with-    ^^i^^   fj.Qj^^    Qq^     because  neither  the  rule, 

out   Revelation.     And  .  '      ,.         .  r     •  • 

no  virtue  in  God.  nor   motive,  nor  obligation  of  virtue  exists. 

They  do  not  exist  indeed,  Paley  might  reply,. 


sm. 


no  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

in  the  form  of  a  revealed  theology ;  but  they  are  there  in  the 
teachings  and  evidences  of  Natural  Theology.  "  The  heathen 
which  have  not  the  law  are  a  law  unto  themselves,  their  con- 
sciences," &c.  But  if  there  are  no  authoritative  intuitions  given 
by  God  to  man's  soul,  of  moral  distinctions,  then  Natural 
Theology  has  no  sufficient  argument  whatever  to  prove  that, 
God  is  a  moral  being,  or  that  He  wills  us  to  perform  moral  acts. 
Look  and  see.  And,  in  fine :  What  can  God's  morality  be  ; 
since  there  is  no  will  of  a  higher  being  to  regulate  His  acts,  and 
no  being  greater  than  He  to  hold  out  the  motive  of  eternal 
rewards  for  obeying  ! 

The  ingenious  scheme  of  Dr.  Adam  Smith,  Theory  of  Mor. 

Sents.,  may  be  seen  verv  perspicuousl}' 
thloV'^'"'  "^  ^™"^'''    unfolded  in  Jouffroy.     This  scheme  is  by   no 

means  so  mischievous  and  degrading  as  that 
of  Hobbes,  Hume  or  Paley.  But  it  is  incorrect.  Its  funda- 
mental defect  is,  that  in  each  step  it  assumes  the  prior  existence 
of  the  moral  sentiment,  in  order  to  account  for  it.  For  instance, 
it  says  :  We  feel  approbation  for  an  act,  when  we  experience 
a  sympathetic  emotion  with  the  sentiments  in  the  agent  which 
prompted  it.  But  sympathy  only  reproduces  the  same  emotion  ; 
it  does  not  transmute  it ;  so  that  unless  the  producing  sentiment 
in  the  agent  were  moral,  it  could  not,  by  sympathy,  generate  a 
moral  sentiment  in  us.  It  supposes  conscience  comes  thus : 
We  imagine  an  ideal  man  contemplating  our  act,  conceive  the 
kind  of  sentiments  he  feels  for  us,  and  then  sympathize  there- 
with. But  how  do  we  determine  the  sentiments  of  this  ideal 
man  looking  at  our  act?  He  is  but  a  projection  of  our  own 
moral  sentiments.  So,  in  each  step.  Dr.  S.  has  to  assume  the 
phenomenon,  as  already  produced ;  for  the  production  of 
which  he  would  account.  Another  fatal  objection  to  Dr.  Smith's 
scheme  is,  that  the  sympathetic  affection  in  the  beholder  is 
always  fainter  than  the  direct  sentiment  in  the  object  beheld. 
But  conscience  visits  upon  us  stronger  affections  than  are 
awakened  by  beholding  the  moral  acts  of  another,  and  approv- 
ing or  blaming  them.  The  sentiments  of  conscience  should, 
according  to  Dr.  Smith,  be  feebler;  for  they  are  the  reflection 
of  a  reflection. 


LECTURE  X. 

ETHICAL   THEORIES.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  the  true  theory  of  the  moral  Distinction  and  Obhgation  ?  Compare  it 
with  that  of  Joiiffroy.  Is  the  moral  Distinction  seen  by  the  Reason,  or  by  a  distinct 
faculty  ? 

Bp.  Butler's  Sermons,  viz:  Preface  and  Sermon  on  Rom.  xii  :  4,  5.  Cousin, 
Le  Vrai,  Le  Bean,  Le  Bieit,  Lecon  14th.  Alexander's  iMoral  Science,  ch.  2-7, 
inclus.,  and  ch.  10.  Jouffroy,  Introduc.  to  Ethics,  Lect.  i  to  3.  Thornwell, 
Discourses  on  Truth,  i,  ii. 

2.  Explain  the  moral  Emotion  involved  widi  the  moral  judgment,  and  in  con- 
nection criticize  the  schemes  of  Hutcheson  and  Brown. 

Cousin  as  above.  Alex.  Mor.  Sc,  ch.  6  to  II.  Dr.  Thos.  Brown,  Lect.  81, 
82.     Jouffroy,  Lect  19,  20. 

3.  State  the  true  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  and  authority  of  conscience 
Butler's  Sermon  on  Rom.  ii  :  14.     Alexander,  ch.  8,  9. 

4.  What  qualities  are  necessary  to  moral  agency  and  responsibility  ? 
Alexander,  ch.  13,  14.     Dr.  Thos.  Brown,  Lect.  73. 

A  RE  moral  distinctions    intrinsic ;  and    are    they    intuitively 

'^^     perceived  ?    We  have  now  passed  in  review  all  the  several 

theories  which  answer,  no  ;  and  found  them 

I.  Moral  Judgments    untenable.      Hence,  alone,  we  derive  a  strong 

are  mtuitive.  ,     ,  ...  ,  '  ^,  ,.  .      ,,        ^     ° 

probability  that  the     affirmative   is  the   true 

answer;  e.  g.  All  the  chemists  endeavour  in  vain  to  analyse  a 
given  material  substance  into  some  other  known  one  ;  but  fail. 
It  is,  therefore,  assumed  to  be   simple  and  original. 

We  must  assume  this  of  the  moral  sentiment;  or  else  it  is 
unintelligible  how  mankind  ever  became  possessed  of  the  moral 
idea.  For  every  original  and  simple  idea,  whether  sensitive  or 
rational,  with  which  our  souls  are  furnished,  we  find  an  appro- 
priate original  power;  and  without  this  the  idea  could  never 
have  been  entertained  by  man.  Had  man  no  eyes,  he  would 
have  never  had  ideas  of  light  and  colours  ;  no  ear,  he  could 
never  have  had  the  idea  of  melody  ;  no  taste,  he  would  forever 
have  lacked  the  idea  of  beauty.  So,  if  the  idea  of  rightness  in 
acts  is  not  identical  with  that  of  truth,  nor  utility,  nor  benevo- 
lence, nor  self-love,  nor  love  of  applause,  nor  sympathetic 
harmony,  nor  any  other  original  sentiment ;  it  must  be  received 
directly  by  an  original  moral  power  in  the  soul.  To  this,  in  the 
second  place,  consciousness  testifies  :  the  man  who  calmly  and 
fully  investigates  his  own  mental  processes,  will  perceive  that 
his  view  and  feehng  of  the  rightness  of  some  acts  arise  imme- 
diately in  his  mind;  without  any  medium,  except  the 
comprehension  of  the  real  relations  of  the  act;  that  their  rise  is 
unavoidable  ;  and  that  their  failure  to  rise  would  be  immediately 
and  necessarily  apprehended  by  all,  as  a  fundamental  defect  of 
his  soul.  There  is,  indeed,  a  great  diversity  in  the  estimation 
of  the  more  complex  details  of  moral  questions.  And  man  s 
III 


112  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

intuition  of  those  distinctions  is  often  disturbed  by  three  causes, 
well  stated  by  Dr.   Brown — complexity  of  elements,   habits  of 
association,   and   prevalent  passion.      But,  allowing  for  these, 
there  is  just  the  universal  and  immediate  agreement  in  all  sane 
human  minds,  which   we  expect  to  find  in  the  acceptance   of 
necessary  first  truths.     In  the  fundamental  and  simple   ideas  of 
morals,  men  are  agreed.  And  in  the  case  of  any  other  intuitions, 
we  have  to  make  precisely  the  same  allowance,  and  to  expect 
the    same    disturbing    causes.       These,    with    the    remarks    I 
made   in   refutation    of   Paley's  objections,    I    think    suffice    to 
sustain  the  true  theory  on  that  point. 

I  hold,  then,  that  as  there  is,  in  some  propositions,  (not  in 
all — some  are  truisms,  many  are  meaningless, 
caf  jiSgme^^^^^^^^^  ^°^"  and  some  so  unknown  as  to  be  neither  affirmed 
nor  denied,)  the  element  of  truth  or  falsehood, 
original,  simple,  incapabable  of  anlaysis  or  definition  in  simpler 
terms,  and  ascertainable  by  the  mind's  intellection  ;  so  there  is 
in  actions,  of  the  class  called  moral,  an  intrinsic  quality  of 
rightness  or  wrongness,  equally  simple,  original,  and  incapable 
of  analysis ;  and,  like  simple  truth,  perceived  immediately  by 
the  inspection  of  the  reason.  This  quality  is  intrinsic ;  they  are 
not  right  merely  because  God  has  commanded,  or  because 
He  has  formed  souls  to  think  so,  or  because  He  has  established 
any  relation  of  utility,  beneficence,  or  self-interest  therewith. 
But  God  has  commanded  them,  and  formed  these  relations  to 
them,  because  they  are  right.  Just  as  a  proposition  is  not  true 
because  our  minds  are  so  constructed  as  to  apprehend  it  such  ; 
but  our  minds  were  made  by  God  to  see  it  so,  because  it  is 
true. 

But  understand  me  ;  I  do  not  assert  that  all  moral  distinc- 
Some  moral   Tud<T-    tions  in  particular  acts  are  intuitively  seen,  or 
ments  likewise  deduc-    necessarily  seen.     As   in   propositions,   some 
^^^'^'  have    primary,    and    some    deductive    truth ; 

some  are  seen  to  be  true  without  premises,  and  some  by  the  help 
of  premises ;  so,  in  acts  having  moral  qualities,  the  rightness  or 
wrongness  of  some  is  seen  immediately,  and  of  some  deduct- 
ively. In  the  latter,  the  moral  relation  of  the  agent  is  not 
immediately  seen,  but  the  moral  judgment  is  mediated  only  by 
the  knowledge  of  some  other  truths.  If  these  truths  are  not 
known,  then  the  moral  quality  of  the  act  is  not  obvious.  From 
this  simple  remark  it  very  clearly  follows,  that  if  the  mind's 
belief  touching  these  truths,  which  are  premises  to  the  moral 
judgment,  be  erroneous,  the  moral  judgment  will  also  err. 
Just  as  in  logic,  so  here  ;  false  premises,  legitimately  used,  will 
lead  to  false  conclusions.  And  here  is  the  explanation  of  the 
discrepancies  in  moral  judgments,  which  have  so  confused 
Ethicks. 

2.     But    there  are  several  writers  of  eminence,  who,  while 
they  substantially,  yea  nobly,  uphold  the  originality  and  excel- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY. 


"3 


lence  of  man's  moral  distinctions,  err,  as  we  think,  in  the  details 
of  their  analysis.  A  moment's  inquiry  into  their  several  depar- 
tures from  my  theory,  will  best  serve  to  define  and  establish  it. 

(a)  Seeing  that  the  moral  distinction  is  intrinsic  ;  what  is  the 
The  Moral  Distinc-    faculty  of  the  soul  by  which  it  is  apprehended  ? 
tion  seen  by  the  Rea-    (Bear  in  mind  a  faculty  is  not  a  limb  of  mind, 
^°""  but  only  a  name  we  give  to  one  phase  or  sort 

of  its  processes.)  Does  it  apprehend  it  by  its  reason ;  or  by  a 
distinct  moral  faculty?  Says  Dr.  Hutcheson,  an  English 
writer:  By  a  distinct,  though  rational  perceptive  faculty,  which 
he  names,  the  moral  sense  ;  and  describes  as  an  internal  sense — 
i.  e.,  a  class  of  processes  perceptive,  and  also  exhibiting  sensibil- 
ity. Says  Dr.  Alexander;  The  perceptive  part  of  our  moral 
processes,  is  simply  a  judgment  of  the  reason.  It  is  but  an 
intellection  of  the  understanding,  like  any  other  judgment  of 
relations,  except  that  it  immediately  awakens  a  peculiar  emo- 
tion, viz :  the  moral.  Now,  it  might  be  plausibly  said  that  the 
reason  is  concerned  only  with  the  judgment  of  truth;  and  we 
have  strenuously  repudiated  the  analysis  which  reduces  the 
moral  distinction  to  mere  truth.  But  it  should  rather  be  said, 
that  the  proper  field  of  the  reason  is  the  judgment  of  relations  ; 
truth  existing  in  propositions  is  only  one  class.  There  seems 
no  ground  to  suppose  that  the  moral  judgment,  so  far  as  merely 
intellective  of  the  distinction,  is  other  than  a  simple  judgment 
of  the  reason ;  because,  so  far  as  we  know,  wherever  reason  is, 
there,  and  there  only,  are  moral  judgments.  2d.  If  the  faculties 
were  two,  the  one,  we  might  rationally  expect,  might  sometimes 
convict  the  other  of  inaccuracy,  as  the  memory  does  the  reason, 
and  vice  versa.  3d.  The  identity  of  the  two  processes  seems 
strongly  indicated  by  the  fact,  that  if  the  reason  is  misled  by 
any  falsehood  of  view,  the  moral  sentiment  is  infallibly  per- 
v^erted  to  just  the  same  extent.  The  moral  motive  is  always  a 
rational  one.  Some  rational  perception  of  the  truth  of  a 
proposition  predicating  relation,  is  necessary,  as  the  occasion  of 
its  acting,  and  the  object  of  a  moral  judgment.  The  reason 
why  brutes  have  not  moral  ideas,  is  that  they  have  not  reason. 
In  short,  I  see  nothing  gained  by  supposing  an  inward 
perceptive  faculty  called  moral  sense,  other  than  the  reason 
itself. 

(b.)  Next  we  notice  the  question :  at  what  stage  of  its 
perceptions  of  the  relations  of  acts,  does  the  reason  see  the 
moral  distinction?  In  each  separate  case  immediately,  as  soon 
as  the  soul  is  enough  developed  to  apprehend  the  relations  of 
the  particular  act?  No  ;  answers  Jouffroy  ;  but  only  after  a  final 
generalization  is  accomplished  by  the  reason. 

His   theory   is:      i.    That  in  the   merely   animal  stage  of 

existence,  the  infant  acts  from  direct,  uncal- 

jou  loy  s  V.C  erne.      Qulating    instinct    alone.     The    rational    idea 

of  its  own  natural  good  is  the  consequence,  not  origin,  of  the 

8* 


114  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

experienced  pleasure  following  from  the  gratification  of  instinct. 
2.  Thus  experience  presents  the  occasions  upon  which  the 
reason  gives  the  general  idea  of  personal  good  ;  and  the  motives 
of  self-calculation  begin  to  act.  But  3d.  The  child  also  observes 
similar  instincts,  resulting  in  its  fellow-men  in  natural  enjoyment 
to  them  ;  and  as  it  forms  the  general  idea  of  its  own  natural  good 
(satisfaction  of  the  whole  circle  of  instincts  to  greatest  attain- 
able degree)  as  its  properest  personal  end,  reason  presents  the 
general  truth,  that  a  similar  personal  end  exists  for  this,  that, 
the  other,  and  every  fellow-man.  Here,  then,  arises  a  still  more 
general  idea ;  the  greatest  attainable  natural  good  of  all  beings 
generally;  the  "absolute  good,"  or  "universal  order;"  and  as 
soon  as  this  is  reached,  the  reason  intuitively  pronounces  it  the 
moral  good ;  to  live  for  this,  is  now  seen  to  be  man's  proper 
end ;  and  rightness  in  acts  is  their  rational  tendency  to  that 
end.  This  is  rather  a  subtile  and  ingenious  generalization  of 
the  result  of  our  moral  judgments,  than  a  correct  account  of 
their  origin.  This  generalization,  as  made  by  the  opening 
mind,  might  suggest  the  notion  of  symmetry,  or  utility  as  belong- 
ing to  the  "absolute  order,"  but  surely  that  of  obligatoriness  is 
an  independent  element  of  rational  perception !  If  the  idea  of 
rightness  and  obligation  had  never  connected  itself  in  the 
opening  mind  with  any  specific  act  having  a  tendency  to  man's 
natural  good,  how  comes  the  mind  to  apprehend  the  universal 
order  as  the  obligatory  moral  end,  when  once  the  reason  forms 
that  abstraction?  It  seems  to  me  that  the  element  of  moral 
judgment  must  be  presupposed,  to  account  for  the  result. 
Again  ;  the  supposed  process  is  inconsistent  with  a  correct  idea 
of  the  generalizing  process.  The  process  does  not  transmute, 
but  only  colligates  the  facts  which  it  ranks  together.  The  gen- 
eral attributes  which  the  mind  apprehends  as  constituting  the 
connotation  of  the  general  term,  are  precisely  the  attributes 
which  it  baw  to  be  common  in  all  the  special  cases  grouped 
together.  So  that,  if  a  moral  order  had  not  been  already 
apprehended  by  the  reason  in  the  specific  acts,  the  mere 
apprehension  of  the  universal  order  would  not  produce  the 
conviction  of  its  morality.  Experience  would  strengthen  the 
moral  idea.  But  usually  the  most  unhackneyed  have  it  most 
vividly-  But  it  is  right  to  say,  that  Jouffroy,  notwithstanding 
this  peculiarity  of  his  theory,  deserves  the  admiration  of  his 
readers,  for  the  beauty  of  his  analyses,  and  the  general  eleva- 
tion of  his  views. 

(c)  The  ethical  lectures  of  Dr.  Thomas  Brown,  of  Edinburgh, 

are  marked   by  great  acuteness,  and  nobility 

Sentimentd  Scheme    ^^  general  tone ;  and  he  has  rendered  gallant 

or  Dr.  1  nomas  un^wn.  °.       .  -     .    '      .  ,°       . 

service  m  refutmg  the  more  erroneous  theories. 
He  makes  moral  distinctions  original  and  authoritative  ;  and 
yet  allows  the  reason  only  a  secondary  function  in  them.  The 
whole  result  of  this  analysis  is  this :   when  certain  actions  (an 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  I  1 5 

action  is  nothing  more  than  the  agent  acting)  are  presented, 
there  arises  immediately  an  emotion,  called,  for  want  of  a  more 
vivid  term,  moral  approbation,  without  any  previous  condition 
of  self-calculation,  judgment  of  relation  in  the  reason,  &c. 
This  immediate  emotion  constitutes  our  whole  feeling  of  the 
rightness,  obligation,  meritoriousness,  of  the  agent.  As  expe- 
rience gathers  up  and  recollects  the  successive  acts  which  affect 
us  with  the  moral  emotion,  reason  makes  the  generalization  of 
them  into  a  class ;  and  thus,  derivatively  forms  the  general  idea 
of  virtue.  Man's  moral  capacity,  therefore,  is,  strictly,  not  a 
power  of  intellection,  but  a  sensibility.  The  reason  only  gen- 
eralizes into  a  class,  those  acts  which  have  the  immediate  power 
of  affecting  this  sensibility  in  the  same  way.  And  Brown's 
system  deserves  yet  more  than  Adam  Smith's,  which  he  so 
ably  refutes,  to  be  called  the  Sentimental  System.  The  moral 
sentiment  is  with  him  strictly  an  instinctive  emotion. 

Now,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  a  valid  objection,  to  say  with 
Jouffroy,  that  thus,  the  moral  emotion  is  made  one  among  the 
set  of  our  natural  instincts :  and  there  no  longer  appears  any 
reason  why  it  should  be  more  dominant  over  the  others  out  of 
its  own  domain,  than  they  over  it;  (e.  g.,  more  than  taste,  or 
resentment,  or  appetite.)  For  the  very  nature  of  this  moral 
instinct.  Brown  might  reply,  is,  that  it  claims  all  other  suscepti- 
bilities which  have  moral  quality,  are  in  its  own  domain. 

The  truer  objections  are:    that  this  notion  does  not  square 

Objection.  1st.  Soul    with    the    analogies   of   the   soul.     In   every 

always  sees,  in  order    case,  our  emotions  arise  out  of  an  intellection. 

to  feel.    2d.  No  virtue    ^\^[^  [^  true,  in  a   lower  sense,  even   of  our 

without    rational,    im-  ....  ,        .  .  i  •    i 

personal  motive.  3d.  anmial  mstuicts.  It  IS  perception  which 
There   would    be   no    awakens  appetites.     It  is  the  conception  of 

uniform  standard.  •    1.      4.    a.      •    •  1  ■    i      „•  4-I  „     • „'i  4-^ 

an  intent  to  injure,  which  gives  the  signal  to 
our  resentment,  even  when  it  arises  towards  an  agent  non- 
moral.  And  in  all  the  more  intellectual  emotions,  as  of  taste, 
love,  moral  complacency,  the  view  of  the  understanding,  and 
that  alone,  evokes  the  emotion  in  a  normal  way.  The  soul 
feels,  because  it  has  seen.  How  else  could  reason  rule  our 
emotions  ?  Surely  this  is  one  of  our  most  important  distinctions 
from  brutes,  that  our  emotions  are  not  mere  instincts,  but 
rational  affections.  Note,  especially  too,  that  if  our  moral 
sentiments  had  no  element  of  judgment  at  their  root,  the  fact 
would  be  inexplicable,  that  they  never,  like  all  other  instinctive 
emotions,  come  in  collision  with  reason.  Again  :  Dr.  B.  has 
very  properly  shown,  in  overthrowing  the  selfish  systems  of 
human  action,  that  our  instincts  are  not  prompted  by  self- 
interest.  He  seems,  therefore,  to  think  that  when  he  makes 
the  moral  emotion  an  instinctive  sensibility,  he  has  done  all  that 
is  needed  to  make  it  disinterested.  But  an  action  is  not,  there- 
fore, morally  disinterested,  because  it  is  not  self-interested. 
Then  would  our  verj^  animal  appetites,  even  in  infancy,  be  vir- 


Il6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

tues !  The  truth  is :  in  instinctive  voHtions,  the  motive  is  per- 
S0nal  to  the  agent ;  but  not  consciously  so.  In  selfish  volitions 
the  motive  is  personal  to  the  agent ;  and  he  knows  it.  Only 
when  the  motive  is  impersonal,  and  he  knows  it,  is  there  disin- 
terestedness, or  virtue.  Last ;  if  Brown's  theory  were  correct, 
moral  good  would  only  be  relative  to  each  man's  sensibility ; 
and  there  would  be  no  uniform  standard.  An  act  might  be 
good  to  one,  bad  to  another,  just  as  it  presented  itself  to  his 
sensibility ;  as  truly  as  in  the  sense  of  the  natural  good ;  one 
man  calls  oysters  good ;  and  another  considers  oysters  bad. 
Whereas  the  true  doctrine  is,  that  moral  distinctions  are  as 
intrinsic  in  certain  acts,  as  truth  is  in  certain  propositions  :  and 
eternal  and  immutable.  Even  God  sees,  and  calls  the  right  to 
be  right,  because  it  so :  not  vice  versa.  Dr.  Brown  foresees 
this ;  and  attempting  to  rebut  it,  is  guilty  of  peculiar  absurdity. 
Why  says  he,  does  it  give  any  more  intrinsic  basis  for  moral 
distinctions  in  the  acts  (or  agents  acting)  themselves,  to  suppose 
that  our  cognizance  of  them  is  by  a  rational  judgment,  than  to 
say,  with  him,  that  it  is  in  the  way  they  naturally  affect  a  sensi- 
bility in  us?  The  capacity  of  having  the  intuitive  judgment  is 
itself  but  a  sort  of  rational  sensibility  to  be  affected  in  a  given 
way ;  and,  in  either  case,  we  have  no  ground  for  any  belief  of 
an  intrinsic  permanence  of  the  relation  or  quality  perceived, 
but  that  our  Maker  made  us  to  be  affected  so !  Thus,  he 
betrays  the  whole  basis  of  morals  and  truth,  to  a  sweeping 
skepticism.  Does  not  intuition  compel  us  to  believe  that  reason 
is  affected  with  such  and  such  judgments,  because  the  grounds 
of  them  are  actual  and  intrinsic  in  the  objects?  Dr.  Brown 
goes  to  the  absurd  length  of  saying,  that  the  supposed  relations 
ascertained  by  reason  herself,  are  not  intrinsic ;  and  exist 
nowhere,  except  in  the  perceiving  reason !  e.  g.,  the  relation  of 
square  of  hypothenuse.  Says  he :  were  there  nowhere  a 
perceiving  mind  comprehending  this  relation,  the  relation  would 
have  no  existence,  no  matter  how  many  right-angled  triangles 
existed  !  Is  not  this  absolute  skepticism  ?  Is  it  not  equivalent 
to  saying  that  none  of  the  perceptions  of  reason,  (i.  e,  human 
beliefs,)  have  any  objective  validity?  There  need  be  no 
stronger  refutation  of  his  theory,  than  that  he  should  acknowl- 
edge himself  driven  by  it  to  such  an  admission. 

The   correct  view,   no   doubt,   is   this :    that    our  simplest 
The  moral  State  com-    rnoral  states  consist  of  two  elements  :  a  judg- 
plex.     Illustrated   by    ment  of  the  understanding,  or  rational  percep- 
^^^^^-  tion  of  the  moral  quality  in  the  act;    and  an 

immediate,  peculiar  emotion,  called  approbation,  arising  there- 
upon, giving  more  or  less  warmth  to  the  judgment.  In  our 
moral  estimates  of  more  complex  cases,  just  as  in  our  intellect- 
ual study  of  derived  truths,  the  process  may  be  more  inferential, 
and  more  complex.  It  has  been  often,  and  justly  remarked, 
that  the  parallel  between  the  rational  aesthetic  functions  of  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  11/ 

soul,  and  its  moral  functions,  is  extremely  instructive.  Psy- 
chology teaches  us  that  rational  taste  (for  instance,  the  pleasure 
of  literary  beauty  in  reading  a  fine  passage,)  consists  of  a 
judgment,  or  cluster  of  judgments,  and  a  peculiar  emotion 
immediately  supervening  thereon.  The  sentiment  of  taste  is, 
then,  complex,  consisting  of  an  action  of  the  intelligence  and 
a  motion  of  the  sensibility.  The  former  is  cause ;  the  latter  is 
consequence.  After  the  excitement  of  the  sensibility  has 
wholly  waned,  the  judgment  which  aroused  it  remains  fixed 
and  unchanged.  Now,  it  is  thus  with  our  moral  sentiments.  A 
rational  judgment  of  the  intrinsic  righteousness  or  wrongness 
of  the  act  immediately  produces  an  emotion  of  approbation, 
or  disapprobation,  which  is  original  and  peculiar.  The  whole 
vividness  of  the  sentiment  may  pass  away ;  but  the  rational 
judgment  will  remain  as  permanent  as  any  judgment  of  truth 
in  propositions.  The  great  distinction  between  the  aesthetic  and 
ethical  actions  of  the  soul,  is  that  the  latter  carries  the  practi- 
cal and  sacred  perception  of  obligation. 

Conscience,  as  I   conceive,  is  but  the  faculty  of  the  soul 

".    Conscience,    j^st  described,  acting  with  reference  to  our 
what?     Obligation,    own  moral  acts,  conceived  as  future,  done,  or 

*  ■  remembered  as    done.     When    we    conceive 

the  wrongness  of  an  act  as  done  by  ourselves,  that  judgment 
and  emotion  take  the  form  of  self-blame,  or  remorse ;  wherein 
the  emotion  is  made  more  pungent  than  in  other  cases  of 
disapprobation,  by  our  instinctive  and  our  self-calculating  self- 
love,  one  or  both.  So  of  the  contrasted  case.  And  the  merit 
of  an  action,  looked  at  as  past,  is  no  other  than  this  judgment 
and  feeling  of  its  rightness,  which  intuitively  connects  the  idea 
of  title  to  reward  with  the  agent,  i.  e.  Our  ideas  of  merit  and 
demerit  are  intuitions  arising  immediately  upon  the  conception 
of  the  rightness  or  wrongness  of  the  acts  ;  connecting  natural 
good  or  evil  with  moral  good  or  evil,  by  an  immediate  tie. 
Our  ideas  of  desert  of  reward  or  punishment,  therefore,  are 
not  identical  with  our  sentiments  of  the  rightness  or  wrongness 
of  acts,  as  Dr.  Brown  asserts,  but  are  intuitively  consequent 
theron.  Dr.  B.  also  asserts,  as  also  Dr.  Alexander,  that  our 
notion  of  obligation  is  no  other  than  our  intuitive  judgment  of 
rightness  in  acts,  regarded  as  prospective.  Therefore,  it  is 
useless  and  foolish  to  raise  the  question  :  "  Why  am  I  obliged, 
morally,  to  do  that  which  is  right?"  it  is  as  though  one  should 
debate  why  he  should  believe  an  axiom.  This  is  substantially 
correct.  But  when  they  say :  whatever  is  right,  is  obligatory, 
and  vice  versa,  there  is  evidently  a  partial  error.  For  there  is 
a  limited  class  of  acts,  of  which  the  rightness  is  not  propor- 
tioned to  the  obligation  to  perform  them ;  but  on  the  contrary, 
the  less  obligation,  the  more  admirable  is  the  virtue  of  doing 
them  gratuitously.  Such  are  some  acts  of  generosity  to 
unworthy  enemies :  and  especially  God's  to  rebel  man.     That 


Il8  SYLLABUS    AND    XOTES 

God  was  under  no  obligation  to  give  His  Son  to  die  for  them, 
is  the  very  reason  His  grace  in  doing  so  is  so  admirable ! 
Obligation,  therefore,  is  not  always  the  correlative  of  rightness 
in  the  act,  but  it  is,  always,  the  correlative  of  a  right  in  the 
object.  This  is  the  distinction  which  has  been  overlooked — i: 
e.,  a  multitude  of  our  acts  have  a  personal  object,  God,  self,  a 
man,  or  mankind,  one  or  more ;  and  the  conscience  in  many 
cases  apprehends,  not  only  that  the  act  would  be  right,  but 
that  such  are  the  relations  of  ourselves  to  the  object,  that  he 
has  a  ricfht,  a  moral  title  to  have  it  done,  in  such  sense  that  not 
only  the  doing  of  the  opposite  to  him,  but  the  withholding  of 
the  act  itself,  would  be  wrong.  In  every  such  case,  the  notion 
of  obligation  arises.  And  that,  stronger  or  weaker,  whether 
the  object's  right  be  perfect  or  imperfect. 

The  most  important  thing,  however,  for  us  to  observe,  is 

that  every  sane  mind  intuitively  recognizes 
sden?eT?nTuiUve^'^"    this    moral    obligation.     The  judgment   and 

emotion  we  call  conscience,  carries  this  pecul- 
iarity over  all  other  states  of  reason  or  instinct ;  that  it  contains 
the  imperative  element.  It  utters  a  command,  the  rightness  of 
which  the  understanding  is  necessitated  to  admit.  Other 
motives,  rational  or  instinctive,  may  often  (alas !)  overcome  it 
in  force ;  but  none  of  them  can  dispute  its  authority.  It  is  as 
impossible  for  the  mind,  after  having  given  the  preference  to 
other  motives,  to  think  its  choice  therein  right,  as  it  is  to  think 
any  other  intuition  untrue.  Conscience  is  the  Maker's  impera- 
tive in  the  soul. 

Hence,  it  must  follow,  that  the  dictate  of  conscience  must 

always  be  obeyed  ;  or  sin  ensues.     But  con- 

Must    conscience,    science  is  not  infallible,  as  guided  by  man's 
misginded,  be  obeyed.     ^  ,,.,  ,  ,  ,.  .      .    °,  r  i       i 

fallible  understandmg :  it  is  clear,  irom  both 

experience  and  reason,  that  her  fiat  may  be  misdirected.  In 
that  case,  is  the  act  innocent,  or  wrong?  If  you  say  the  latter, 
you  seem  involved  in  a  glaring  paradox ;  that  to  obey  would 
be  wrong;  and  yet  to  disobey  would  be  wrong.  How  can 
both  be^true?  If  you  say  the  former,  other  absurdities  would 
follow.  1st.  Truth  would  seem  to  be  of  no  consequence  in 
order  to  right;  and  the  conscience  might  just  as  well  be  left 
uninformed,  as  informed,  so  far  as  one  man  is  personally  con- 
cerned therein.  2d.  Each  man's  view  of  duty  would  be  valid 
for  him ;  so  that  there  might  be  as  many  clashing  views  of 
duty,  as  men,  and  each  valid  in  itself;  so  that  we  should  reach 
such  absurdities  as  these  :  A  has  a  right  to  a  given  object, 
which  B  has  an  equal  right  to  prevent  his  having ;  so  that  B 
has  a  moral  right  to  do  to  A  what  is  to  him  a  moral  wrong ! 
3d.  Many  of  the  most  odious  acts  in  the  world,  reprobated  by 
all  posterity,  as  the  persecutions  of  a  Saul,  or  a  Dominic,  would 
be  justified,  because  the  perpetrators  believed  they  were  doing 
God  service. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 19 

The  solution  of  this  seeming  paradox  is  in  this  fact:  that 
God  has  not  given  man  a  conscience  which 
Solution.  -g  (,g^p^|3ig  Qf  misleading  him,  when  lawfully 

and  innocently  used.  In  other  words,  while  lack  of  knowledge 
necessary  to  perceive  our  whole  duty  may  often  occur,  (in 
which  case  it  is  always  innocent  to  postpone  acting,)  positive 
error  of  moral  judgment  only  arises  from  guilty  haste  or  heed- 
lessness, or  indolence,  or  from  sinful  passion  or  prejudice. 
When,  therefore,  a  man  sincerely  believes  it  right  in  his  con- 
science to  do  what  is  intrinsically  wrong,  the  wrongness  is  not 
in  the  fact  that  he  obeyed  conscience,  (for  this  abstractly  is 
right,)  but  in  the  fact  that  he  had  before,  and  at  the  time, 
perverted  conscience  by  sinful  means. 

We  intuitively  apprehend  that  all  agents   are  not  proper 

subjects  of  moral  approbation  or  disappro- 

4.  What  constitutes    Nation.    Hence,  the  question  must  be  settled  : 

Moral  agency.  11  •    1  1 

what    are    the    elements    essential    to    moral 

responsibility !  This  can  be  settled  no  otherwise  than  by  an 
appeal  to  our  intuitions.  For  instance  :  we  may  take  an  act  of 
the  form  which  would  have  moral  quality,  if  done  by  a  moral 
agent  —  e.  g.,  inflicting  causeless  bodily  pain;  and  attributing 
it  to  successive  sorts  of  agents,  from  lower  to  higher,  ascertain 
what  the  elements  are,  which  confer  responsibility.  As  we 
walk  through  a  grove,  a  dead  branch  falls  on  our  heads ;  we 
feel  that  resentment  would  be  absurd ;  much  more  disapproba- 
tion ;  the  thing  is  dead.  We  walk  near  our  horse,  he  wantonly 
kicks  or  bites.  There  is  a  certain  type  of  anger ;  but  it  is  not 
moral  disapprobation ;  we  feel  still,  that  this  would  be  absurd. 
Here,  there  is  sensibility  and  will  in  the  agent :  but  no  con- 
science or  reason.  We  walk  with  our  friend  ;  he  treads  on  our 
corns  and  produces  intolerable  pain ;  but  it  is  obviously  unin- 
tentional. We  pass  through  a  lunatic  asylum ;  a  maniac  tries 
to  kill  us.  Here  is  sensibility,  free-will,  intention ;  but  reason 
is  dethroned.  In  neither  of  these  cases  should  we  have  moral 
disapprobation.  A  stronger  man  takes  hold  of  our  friend,  and 
by  brute  force  makes  him  strike  us ;  there  is  no  anger  towards 
our  friend  ;  he  is  under  co-action.  We  learn  from  these  various 
instances,  that  free-agency,  intention,  and  rationality  are  all 
necessary,  to  constitute  a  man  a  responsible  moral  agent. 


LECTURE  XI 

FREE  AGENCY  AND  THE  WILL. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Are  man's  actions  under  a  fatal  necessity  ? 

Alexander's  Moral  Science,  chaps.  15,  16.  Cousin,  Le  Vrai,  &c.,  Lecon  14. 
Jouffroy,  Lect.  4,  5.  Morell,  Hist.  Mod.  Phil,  on  Hobbes  and  Sensationalism, 
p.  74,  &c.,  299,  &c. 

2.  What  constitutes  Free- Agency  ?  State  the  theory  of  Indifferency  of  the  Will, 
and  Power  of  Contrary  Choice:  State,  on  the  other  hand,  the  theory  of  Certainty, 
and  Efficiency  of-  Motives.     See, 

Turrettin,  Loc.  x,  Qu.  i,  Qu.  iii,  \  1-4.  Alexander,  ch's  16,  18,  19.  Edwards 
on  the  Will,  Introduc.  and  pt.  i,  Morell,  p.  299,  &c.  Reid's  Philosophy  of 
Mind.  McCosh,  Gov.  Divine  and  Moral,  p.  273,  &c.  Watson's  Theolog. 
Institutes,  Vol.  ii.  p.  304,  p.  435,  &c. 

3.  Sustain  the  true  doctrine,  and  answer  objections.     See, 

Turrettin,  Loc.  x,  Qu.  2.  Edwards  on  the  Will,  pt.  iii.  Alexander,  as  above. 
Bledsoe  on  the  Will;  and  Theodicy,  pt.  i.  Aristotle,  Nicomachian  Ethics,  bk. 
vi,  \  23.  Dr.  Wm.  Cunningham,  Hist.  Theology,  ch.  20,  \  i,  2,  3.  Anselm, 
Cur  Deus  Ho7no,  pt.  ii,  ch.  10. 

"D  UT  is  man  a  free  agent  ?     Many  have  denied  it.     These  may 
be  ranked  under  two  classes,  Theological  Fatalists  and  Sen- 
I.   Man     a    free-    sualistic    Necessitarians.     The    former  argue 
agent,  denied  by  two    from    the    doctrine    of  God's   foreknowledge 
P^^'^^^'  and  providence  ;  the  latter  from  the  certainty, 

or,  as  it  has  unluckily  been  termed,  necessity  of  the  Will.  Say 
the  one  party ;  God  has  foreknown  and  foreordained  all  that  is 
done  by  rational  man,  as  well  as  by  irrational  elements,  and  His 
almighty  providence  infallibly  effectuates  it  all.  Therefore, 
man's  will  is  only  seemingly  free  ;  he  must  be  a  machine ;  com- 
pelled by  God  (for  if  God  had  no  efficacious  means  to  compel, 
He  could  not  certainly  have  foreknown)  to  do  what  God  pur- 
posed from  eternity :  and,  therefore,  man  never  had  any  real 
choice  ;  he  is  the  slave  of  this  divine  fate.  Say  the  other  party, 
headed  by  Hobbes :  man's  volitions  are  all  effects  :  following 
with  a  physical  necessity  upon  the  movement  of  the  preponder- 
ant desires.  But  what  are  his  desires?  The  soul  intrinsically 
is  passive  ;  the  attributes  are  nothing  but  certain  susceptibilities 
of  being  affected  in  certain  ways,  by  impressions  from  without. 
There  is  nothing,  no  thought,  no  feeling  in  the  mind,  except 
what  sensation  produced  there  ;  indeed  all  inward  states  are  but 
modified  sensations.  Hence,  desire  is  but  the  reflex  of  the 
perception  of  a  desirable  object;  resentment  but  the  re-action 
from  impact.  Man's  emotions,  then,  are  the  physical  results  of 
outward  impressions,  and  his  volitions  the  necessary  effects  of 
his  emotions.  Man's  whole  volitions,  therefore,  are  causatively 
determined  from  without.  While  he  supposes  himself  free,  he 
is  the  slave  of  circumstances  :  of  fate,  if  those  circumstances 
arise  by  chance. 
120 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  121 

Now,  in  answer  to  all  this,  it  would  be  enough  to  say,  that 

^    ,.        ,,  our  consciousness  contradicts  it.     There  can 

Replies  to  them.  ,  u-u  -j  ^i         .i.r 

be  no  higher  evidence  than  that  of  conscious- 
ness. Every  man  feels  conscious  that  wherever  he  has  power 
to  do  what  he  wills,  he  acts  freely.  And  the  validity  of  this 
uniform,  immediate  testimony  of  consciousness,  as  Cousin  well 
remarks,  on  this  subject,  must,  in  a  sense,  supersede  all  other 
evidence  of  our  free-agency ;  because  all  possible  premises  of 
such  arguments  must  depend  on  the  testimony  of  conscious- 
ness. But  still,  it  is  correct  to  argue,  that  man  must  be  a  free 
agent ;  because  this  is  inevitably  involved  in  his  responsibility. 
Conscience  tells  us  we  are  responsible  for  our  moral  acts.  Reason 
pronounces,  intuitively,  that  responsibility  would  be  absurd  were 
we  not  free  agents.  It  may  be  well  added,  that  when  you  ap- 
proach revealed  theologv,  you  find  the  Scriptures,  (which  so 
frequently  assert  God's  decree  and  providence,)  assert  and 
imply,  with  equal  frequency,  man's  free-agency.  The  king  of 
Babylon  (Isaiah  xiv)  fulfills  God's  purpose  in  capturing  the  sin- 
ful Jews ;  but  he  also  fulfills  the  purpose  of  his  own  heart.  But 
we  can  do  more  than  rebut  the  Fatalist's  views  by  the  testimony 
of  our  consciousness ;  we  can  expose  their  sophistry.  God's 
mode  of  effectuating  His  purposes  as  to  the  acts  of  free  agents, 
is  not  by  compelling  their  acts  or  wills,  contrary  to  their  prefer- 
ences and  dispositions  ;  either  secretly  or  openly  ;  but  by  ope- 
rating through  their  dispositions.  And  as  to  the  latter  argu- 
ment, from  the  certainty  of  the  will ;  we  repudiate  the  whole 
philosophy  of  sensationalism,  from  which  it  arises.  True,  voli- 
tions are  effects  ;  but  not  effects  of  the  objects  upon  which  they 
go  forth.  The  perception  of  these  is  but  the  occasion  of  their 
rise,  not  the  cause.  When  desire  attaches  itself  upon  any  exter- 
nal object,  terminating  in  volition,  the  whole  activity  and  power 
are  in  the  mind,  not  in  the  object.  The  true  immediate  cause 
of  volition  is  the  mind's  own  previous  view  and  feeling  ;  and, 
this,  again,  is  the  result  of  the  mind's  spontaneity,  as  guided  by 
its  own  prevalent  attributes  and  habitudes. 

What  constitutes  man  a  free  agent  ?  Say  one  party  :  the 
2.  Freedom  and  self-determining  power  of  the  will;  say  the 
necessity  defined.  Other :  the  self-determining  power  of  the  soul. 
Semi-Pelangianism  and  jhe  one  asserts  that  our  acts  of  volition  are 
uncaused  phenomena,  that  the  will  remains 
in  eqiiilibrio,  after  all  the  preliminary  conditions  of  judgment  in 
the  understanding,  and  emotion  of  the  native  dispositions  are 
fulfilled,  and  that  the  act  of  choice  is  self-determined  by  the  will, 
and  not  by  the  preliminary  states  of  soul  tending  thereto  ;  so 
that  volitions  are  in  every  case,  more  or  less  contingent.  The 
other  party  repudiates,  indeed,  the  old  sensational  creed,  of  a 
physical  tie  between  the  external  objects  which  are  the  occa- 
sions of  our  judgments  and  feelings  ;  and  attributes  all  action 
of  will  to   the    soul's    own    spontaneity  as  its   efficient  source. 


122  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

But  it  asserts  that  this  spontaneity,  hke  all  other  forces  in  the 
universe,  acts  according  to  law;  that  this  law  is  the  connection 
between  the  soul's  own  states  and  its  own  choices,  the  former 
being  as  much  of  its  own  spontaneity  as  the  latter ;  that  there- 
fore volitions  are  not  uncaused,  but  always  follow  the  actual 
state  of  judgment  and  feeling,  (single  or  complex,)  at  the  time 
being ;  and  that  this  connection  is  not  contingent,  but  efficient 
and  certain.  And  this  certainty  is  all  that  they  mean  by  moral 
necessity. 

The  latter  is  evidently  the  true  doctrine  :  because,  (a)  Our 

3.    Will  deteraiin-    consciousness  says  so.     Every  man  feels  that 

ed  by  subjective  Mo-    when  he  acts,  as  a  thinking  being,  he  has  a 

tive.  Arguments.  ^^^^j^^  f^^.  ^^^-^^  ^^  .    ^^^   ^^^^^    -^  j^^  j^^^  ^^^ 

had,  he  v^^ould  not  have  done  it.  The  man  is  conscious  that  he 
determines  himself,  else,  he  would  not  be  free  ;  but  he  is  equally 
conscious  that  it  is  himself  judging  and  desiring,  which  deter- 
mines himself  choosing  :  (b)  Otherwise  there  would  be  no  such 
thing  as  a  recognition  of  character,  or  permanent  principles. 
For  there  would  be  no  efficient  influence  of  the  man's  own 
principles  over  his  actions ;  (and  it  is  by  his  actions  alone  we 
would  know  his  principles  ;)  and  his  principles  might  be  of  a 
given  character,  and  his  actions  of  a  different,  or  of  no  char- 
acter, (c)  Consequently  there  would  be  no  certain  result  from 
human  influence  over  man's  character  and  actions,  in  education 
and  moral  government.  We  might  educate  the  principles,  and 
still  fail  to  educate  the  actions  and  habits.  The  fact  which  we 
all  experience  every  day  would  be  impossible,  that  we  can  cause 
our  fellow-men  to  put  forth  certain  volitions,  that  we  can  often 
do  it  with  a  foreseen  certainty,  and  still  we  feel  that  those  acts 
are  free  and  responsible,  (d)  Otherwise  man  might  be  neither 
a  reasonable  nor  a  moral  being.  Not  reasonable,  because  his 
acts  might  be  wholly  uncontrolled  at  last  by  his  whole  under- 
standing ;  not  moral,  because  the  merit  of  an  act  depends  on  its 
motive,  and  his  acts  would  be  motiveless.  The  self-determined 
volition  has  its  freedom  essentially  in  this,  according  to  its  advo- 
cates ;  that  it  is  caused  by  no  motive.  Hence,  no  acts  are  free 
and  virtuous,  except  those  which  a  man  does  without  having  any 
reason  for  them.  Is  this  good  sense  ?  Does  not  the  virtuous- 
ness  of  a  man's  acts  depend  upon  the  kind  of  reason  which 
moved  to  them  ?  (e)  In  the  choice  of  one's  sumimim  bomtm, 
the  will  is  certainly  not  contingent.  Can  a  rational  being  choose 
his  own  misery,  apprehended  as  such,  and  eschew  his  own  hap- 
piness, for  their  own  sakes?  Yet  that  choice  is  free;  and  if 
certainty  is  compatible  with  free-agency  in  this  the  most  im- 
portant case,  why  not  in  any  other?  (f)  God,  angels,  saints  in 
glory,  and  the  human  nature  of  Jesus  Christ,  must  be  certainly 
determined  to  right  volitions  by  the  holiness  of  their  own  na- 
tures, and  in  all  but  the  first  case  by  the  indwelling  grace  and 
the  determinate  purpose  of  God.     So,  on  the  other  hand,  devils, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 23 

lost  souls,  and  those  who  on  earth  have  sinned  away  their  day 
of  grace,  must  be  certainly  determined  to  evil,  by  their  own  de- 
cisive evil  natures  and  habits :  yet  their  choice  is  free  in  both 
cases. 

(g)  If  the  will  were  contingent,  there  could  be  no  scicntia 
media;  and  we  should  be  compelled  to  the  low  and  profane 
ground  of  the  Socinian ;  that  God  does  not  certainly  foreknow 
all  things  ;  and  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot.  For  the  defi- 
nition of  scientia  media  is,  that  it  is  that  contingent  knowledge 
of  what  free  agents  will  do  in  certain  foreseen  circumstances, 
arising  out  of  God's  infinite  insight  into  their  dispositions.  But 
if  the  will  may  decide  in  the  teeth  of  that  foreseen  disposition, 
there  can  be  no  certain  knowledge  how  it  will  decide.  Nor  is 
the  evasion  suggested  by  modern  Arminians  {vide,  Mansel's 
Lim,  of  Relig.  Thought)  of  any  force ;  that  it  is  incompetent  for 
our  finite  understandings  to  say  that  God  cannot  have  this 
scientia  media,  because  we  cannot  see  how  He  is  to  have  it. 
For  the  thing  is  not  merely  among  the  incomprehensibles,  but 
the  impossibles.  If  a  thing  is  certainly  foreseen,  it  must  be  cer- 
tain to  occur,  or  else  the  foreknowledge  of  its  certain  occurrence 
is  false.  But  if  it  is  certain  to  occur,  it  must  be  because  there 
will  be  an  antecedent,  certainly,  or  efficiently  connected  with  the 
event,  as  cause.  It  is,  therefore,  in  the  knowledge  of  this  causal 
connection,  that  God  would  find  his  scientia  media,  if  this  branch 
of  His  knowledge  were  mediate.  To  sum  up  in  a  word,  the  in- 
utility of  this  evasion,  this  Semi-Pelagian  theory  begins  by  im- 
puting to  God  an  inferential  knowledge  of  man's  free  acts,  and 
then,  in  denying  the  certain  influence  of  motives  takes  away  the 
only  ground  of  inference,  (h)  Last,  God  would  have  no  efficient 
means  of  governing  free  agents ;  things  would  be  perpetually 
emerging  through  their  contingent  acts,  unforeseen  by  God,  and 
across  His  purposes;  and  His  government  would  be,  like 
man's,  one  of  sorry  expedients  to  patch  up  His  failures.  Nor 
could  He  bestow  any  certain  answer  to  prayer,  either  for  our 
own  protection  against  temptation  and  wroiig  choice,  or  the  evil 
acts  of  other  free  agents.  All  the  predictions  of  Scripture  con- 
cerning events  in  which  the  free  moral  acts  of  rational  agents 
enter  as  second  causes,  are  arguments  against  the  contingency 
of  the  will.  But  we  see  striking  instances  in  Joseph,  the  Assyri- 
ans, Cyrus,  and  especially  the  Jews  who  rejected  their  Lord. 
From  this  point  of  view,  the  celebrated  argument  of  Edwards 
for  the  certainty  of  the  will  from  God's  foreknowledge  of 
creatures'  free  acts,  is  obvious.  The  solution  of  the  cavils  at- 
tempted against  it  is  this  position  :  That  the  principle,  "  No 
event  without  a  cause,"  which  is,  to  us,  a  universal  and  neces- 
sary first  truth,  is  also  a  truth  to  the  divine  mind.  When  God 
certainly  foresees  an  act,  he  foresees  it  as  coming  certainly  out 
of  its  cause.  Hence,  I  repeat,  if  the  foresight  is  certain,  the 
causation  must  be  efficient. 


•124  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

I  have  indicated,  both  when  speaking  of  fatahsm  and  of 
Certainty  of  the  Will    the  impossibiHty  of  a  scientia  media  concern- 
proved  by  God's  sov-    ing  a  contingent  will,  the    argument  for  the 
ereignty.  certainty  of  the  will  contained  in  the   fact   of 

God's  sovereignty.  If  He  is  universal  First  Cause,  then  nothing 
is  uncaused.  Such  is  the  argument;  as  simple  as  it  is  compre- 
hensive. It  cannot  be  taught  that  volitions  are  uncaused,  unless 
you  make  all  free  agents  a  species  of  gods,  independent  of 
Jehovah's  control.  In  other  words,  if  His  providence  extends 
to  the  acts  of  free  agents,  their  volitions  cannot  be  uncaused ; 
for  providence  includes  control,  and  control  implies  power.  The 
argument  from  God's  sovereignty  is,  indeed,  so  conclusive,  that 
the  difficulty,  with  thinking  minds,  is  not  to  admit  it,  but  to 
avoid  being  led  by  it  to  an  extreme.  The  difficulty  rather  is, 
to  see  how,  in  the  presence  of  this  universal,  absolute  sovereignty, 
man  can  retain  a  true  spontaneity.  I  began  by  defining  that, 
while  the  will  of  man  is  not  self-determining,  his  soul  is.  I 
believe  that  a  free,  rational  Person  does  properly  originate 
effects ;  that  he  is  a  true  fountain  of  spontaneity,  determining 
his  own  powers,  from  within,  to  new  effects.  This  is  a  most 
glorious  part  of  that  image  of  God,  in  which  he  is  created.  This 
is  free-agency !  Now,  how  can  this  fact  be  reconciled  with 
what  we  have  seen  of  God  as  absolute  First  Cause  ? 

(j)  The  demonstration  may  be  closed  by  the  famous  Rednctio 
ad  absiirdmn,  which  Edwards  has  borrowed  from  the  scholastics. 
If  the  will  is  not  determined  to  choice  by  motives,  but  determines 
itself,  then  the  will  must  determine  itself  thereto  by  an  act  of 
choice  ;  for  this  is  the  will's  only  function.  That  is,  the  will 
must  choose  to  choose.  Now,  this  prior  choice  must  be  held 
by  our  opponents  to  be  self-determined.  Then  it  must  be 
determined  by  the  will's  act-  of  choice — i.  e.,  the  will  must 
choose  to  choose  to  choose.  Thus  we  have  a  ridiculous  and 
endless  regress7is. 

I  now  return  to  consider  the  objections  usually  advanced 
against  .our  doctrine.  The  most  formidable  is  that  which  shall 
be  first  introduced ;  the  supposed  incompatibility  of  God's 
sovereignty  as  universal  First  Cause,  with  man's  freedom. 

The  reconciliation  may  and  does  transcend  our  compre- 
hension, and  yet  be  neither  unreasonable  nor 

Yet  Man  under  Prov-    •  ]•,  ,  rp,  .    ,       ,  ,,        i-,.,  •      , 

■idence  is  free.  mcredible.      1  he  point  where  the  little  circle 

of  creature    volition     inosculates     with    the 

immense  circle  of  the  divine  will,  is  beyond  human  view.   When 

we  remember  that  the  wisdom,  power  and  resources  of  God  are 

infinite,  it  is  not  hard  to  see  that  there  may  be  a  way  by  which 

our    spontaneity   is  directed,    omnipotently,    and   yet   without 

infringement    of  its  reality.     The   sufficient   proof  is,   that  we, 

finite  creatures,  can  often  efficaciously  direct  the  free  will  of  our 

fellows,  without  infringing  it.     Does   any   one  say  that   still,   in 

-every  such  case,  the  agent,  if  free  as  to  us,  has  power  to  do  the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  12$, 

opposite  of  what  we  induce  him  to  do  ?  True,  he  has  physical 
power.  But  yet  the  causative  efficacy  of  our  means  is  certain ; 
witness  the  fact  that  we  were  able  certainly  to  predict  our- 
success.  A  perfect  certainty,  such  as  results  from  God's  infin- 
itely wise  and  powerful  providence  over  the  creature's  will,  is  all. 
that  we  mean  by  moral  necessity.  We  assert  no  other  kind  of 
necessity  over  the  free  will.  More  mature  reflection  shows  us, 
that  so  far  are  God's  sovereignty  and  providence  from  infringing 
man's  free-agency,  they  are  its  necessary  conditions.  Consider : 
What  would  the  power  of  choice  be  worth  to  one  if  there  were 
no  stability  in  the  laws  of  nature;  or  no  uniformity  in  its 
powers  ?  No  natural  means  of  effectuating  volitions  would  have 
any  certainty,  whence  choice  would  be  impotent,  and  motives 
would  cease  to  have  any  reasonable  weight.  Could  you  intelli- 
gently elect  to  sow,  if  there  were  no  ordinance  of  nature  insuring 
seed  time  and  harvest  ?  But  now,  what  shall  give  that  stability 
to  nature  ?  A  mechanical,  physical  necessity  ?  That  results  in 
naught  but  fatalism.  The  only  other  answer  is  :  it  must  be  the 
intelligent  purpose  of  an  almighty,  personal  God. 

The  leading  objections  echoed  by  Arminians  against  the 
certainty  of  the  will,  is,  that  if  man  is  not  free  from  all  constraint, 
whether  of  motive  or  co-action,  it  is  unjust  in  God  to  hold  him. 
subject  to  blame,  or  to  command  to  those  acts  against  which 
His  will  is  certainly  determined,  or  to  punishments  for  failure. 
We  reply,  practically,  that  men  are  held  blamable  and  punish- 
able for  acts  to  which  their  wills  are  certainly  determined,  both 
among  men  and  before  God  ;  and  all  consciences  approve. 
This  is  indisputable,  in  the  case  of  those  who  are  overmastered 
by  a  malignant  emotion,  as  in  Gen.  xxxvii :  4,  of  devils  and  lost 
souls,  and  of  those  who  have  sinned  away  their  day  of  grace. 
The  Arminian  rejoins,  (Watson,  vol.  2,  p.  438 :)  Such  trans- 
gressors, notwithstanding  their  inability  of  will,  are  justly  held 
responsible  for  all  subsequent  failures  in  duty,  because  they 
sinned  away  the  contingency  of  their  own  wills,  by  their  own-, 
personal,  free  act,  after  they  became  intelligent  agents.  But  as 
man  is  born  in  this  inability  of  will,  through  an  arrangement 
with  a  federal  head,  to  which  he  had  no  opportunity  to  dissent, 
it  would  be  unjust  in  God  to  hold  him  responsible,  unless  He 
had  restored  the  contingency  of  will  to  them  lost  in  Adam,  by 
the  common  sufficient  grace  bestowed  through  Christ.  But  the 
distinction  is  worthless  :  ist,  because,  then,  God  would  have 
been  under  an  obligation  in  righteousness,  to  furnish  a  plan  of 
redemption  :  but  the  Scriptures  represent  His  act  therein  as 
purely  gracious.  2d.  Because,  then,  all  the  guilt  of  the  subse- 
quent sins  of  those  who  had  thrown  away  the  contingency  of 
their  own  wills,  would  have  inhered  in  the  acts  alone  by  which 
they  lost  it.  True  ;  that  act  would  have  been  an  enormously 
guilty  one ;  the  man  would  have  therein  committed  moral 
suicide.     But  it  would  also  be  true  that  the  man  was  thereafter" 


126  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

morally  dead,  and  the  dead  cannot  work.  3d.  The  Arminian 
should,  by  parity  of  reason,  conclude,  that  in  any  will  certainly 
determined  to  holiness,  the  acts  are  not  meritorious,  unless  that 
determination  resulted  from  the  being's  own  voluntary  self- 
culture,  and  formation  of  good  dispositions  and  habits.  Therefore 
God's  will,  which  has  been  from  eternity  certainly  determined 
to  good,  does  nothing  meritorious  !* 

But  the  more  analytical  answer  to  this  class  of  objections  is: 
that  the  certainty  of  disobedience  in  the  sinner's  will  is  no  excuse 
for  him,  because  it  proceeds  from  a  voluntary  cause — i.  e., 
moral  disposition.  As  the  volition  is  only  the  man  willing,  the 
motive  is  the  man  feeling  ;  it  is  the  man's  self.  There  is  no  lack 
of  the  requisite  capacities,  if  the  man  would  use  those  capacities 
aright.  Now,  a  man  cannot  plead  the  existence  of  an  obstacle 
as  his  excuse,  which  consists  purely  in  his  own  spontaneous 
emission  of  opposition. 

Now,  the  objections  most  confidently  urged,  are  :  (a.)  That 

our  view  makes  man  a  machine,  an  intelligent 
That  this  makes  us  -jjut        „i-         •  i-t        i- 

machines.  *^"^'  Indeed  ;  but  a  machme  m  which   choice 

follows  motive  by  a  physical  tie.     Ans.    Man 

is  in  one  sense  a  machine,  (if  you  will  use  so  inappropriate  an 

illustration) ;  his  spontaneous  force  of  action  has  its  regular  laws. 

But  he  is   not   a   machine,  in  the   essential  point ;  the   motive 

power  is  not  external,  but  is  in  himself 

(b)  It  is  objected  that  our  scheme  fails    to   account    for  all 

That       man     acts    choices  where  the  man  acts  against   his  own 

against  his  own  judg-    better  judgment  and  prevalent  feelings;  or; 

™^"'-'  in  other  words,    that  while  the  dictate  of  the 

*  The  antiquity  of  this  cavil,  and  its  proper  refutation,  may  be  seen  in  tlie  Cur 
Dens  Homo  of  Anselm,  pt.  ii,  chap.  10,  where  the  topic  is  tlie  impeccability  of  Christ. 

Boso. — "I  say,  then,  if  He  cannot  sin,  because,  as  you  say,  He  cannot  wish  to. 
He  obeys  from  necessity;  whence.  He  is  not  righteous  from  the  freedom  of  His  will. 
Then,  what  favour  will  be  due  Him  for  His  righteousness?  For  we  are  wont  to  say,  • 
that  God,  therefore,  made  angels  and  men  such  that  they  could  sin  ;  since,  inasmuch 
as  they  could  forsake  righteousness,  and  could  keep  righteousness  out  of  the  freedom 
of  their  will,  they  would  deserve  approbation  and  favour,  which  would  not  be  due  to 
them  were  they  righteous  from  necessity." 

Anselm. — "Are  the  (elect)  angels  who  now  cannot  sin,  to  be  approved  ornot?" 

Boso. — "Of  course  they  are,  because  this  gift  (that  they  cannot  sin)  they  earned 
in  this  way,  viz. :  by  not  choosing  to  sin  when  they  could." 

Ansf.lm.-^"  Well,  what  do  you  say  about  God,  who  is  not  able  to  sm,  and  yet  did 
not  earn  that  state  by  not  choosing  to  sin  while  He  had  power  to  do  it:  isn't  He  to 
be  praised  for  His  righteousness?" 

Boso. — "I  wish  you  would  answer  for  me  there;  for,  if  I  say  He  is  not  to  be 
praised  for  it,  I  know  I  am  lying;  but  if  I  say  He  is,  I  am  afraid  I  shall  spoil  that 
argument  of  mine  about  the  angels." 

Anselm  proceeds,  accepting  this  virtual  confession  of  defeat,  to  explain :  That 
the  approvableness  of  the  angels'  conduct  depends,  not  on  the  question,  '■'■How  they 
came  by  the  dispositions  which  prompt  them  to  obey;  "  but  on  the  question,  whether 
they  have  such  dispositions,  and  act  them  out  of  their  own  accord:  That  God,  in 
creating  them  with  free-agency,  intelligence  and  holy  dispositions,  conferred  His  own 
image  on  them:  and  that  their  sjiontaneity,  though  conferred,  is  as  real,  and  as  really 
moral,  as  God's  spontaneity,  which  was  not  conferred,  but  eternal  and  necessary. 
And  that,  if  there  were  any  force  in  Boso's  cavil,  that  a  morally  necessitated  righteous- 
ness would  not  be  free  and  approvable  in  the  creature,  it  would  be  far  stronger  against 
God,  whose  holiness  is  the  most  strictly  necessitated  of  all,  being  absolutely  eternal. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  12/ 

understanding  as  to  the  truly  preferable,  is  one  way,  the  will 
acts  the  other  way  ;  e.  g.,  the  drunkard  breaks  his  own  anxiously 
made  resolutions  of  temperance,  and  drinks.  I  reply,  No  ; 
still  the  man  has  chosen  according  to  what  was  the  prevalent 
view  of  his  judgment  and  feelings,  as  a  whole,  at  the  time. 
That  drunkard  does  judge  sobriety  the  preferable  part  in  the 
end,  and  on  the  whole  ;  but  as  to  the  question  of  this  present 
glass  of  drink,  (the  only  immediate  object  of  volition,)  his  under- 
standing is  misinformed  by  strong  propensity  and  the  delusive 
hope  of  subsequent  reform,  combining  the  advantages  of  present 
indulgence  with  future  impunity  ;  so  that  its  judgment  is,  that 
the  preferable  good  will  be  this  one  glass,  rather  than  present, 
immediate  self-denial, 

(c)It  is  objected  that  our  repentance  for  having  chosen  wrong, 
That  repentance  always  implies  the  feeling  that  we  might 
implies  power  of  con-  have  chosen  Otherwise,  had  we  pleased.  I 
trary  choice.  reply,   Ycs ;  but  not  unless  that  choice  had 

been  preceded  at  the  time  by  a  different  view  of  the  preferable. 
The  thing  for  which  the  man  blames  himself  is,  that  he  had  not 
those  different  feelings  and  views,  (d.)  It  is  objected  that  our 
theory  could  never  account  for  a  man's  choosing  between  two 
alternative  objects,  equally  accessible  and  desirable,  inasmuch 
as  the  desire  for  either  is  equal,  and  the  will  has  no  self-deter- 
mining power.  The  answer  is,  that  the  equality  of  objects  by  no 
means  implies  the  equality  of  subjective  desires.  For  the  mind 
is  never  in  precisely  the  same  state  of  feeling  to  any  external 
object  or  objects,  for  two  minutes  together,  but  ever  ebbing  and 
flowing  more  or  less.  In  this  case,  although  the  objects  remain 
equal,  the  mind  will  easily  make  a  difference,  perhaps  an  imagi- 
nary one.  And  farther :  the  two  objects  being  equal,  the 
inertia  of  will  towards  choosing  a  given  one  of  them,  may  be 
infinitesimally  small ;  so  that  an  infinitesimally  small  prepon- 
derance of  subjective  motive  may  suffice  to  overcome  it. 
Remember,  there  is  already  a  subjective  motive  in  the  general, 
to  choose  some  one  of  them.  A  favorite  instance  supposed  is 
that  of  a  rich  man,  who  has  in  his  palm  two  or  three  golden 
guineas,  telling  a  beggar  that  he  may  take  any  one.  But  they 
are  exactly  equal  in  value.  Now,  the  beggar  has  a  very  posi- 
tive motive  to  take  some  one  of  them,  in  his  desire  for  the  value 
to  him  of  a  guinea.  The  least  imaginative  impulse  within  his 
mind  is  enough  to  decide  a  supposed  difference  which  is 
infinitesimal. 

Most   important  light   is  thrown  upon  the   subject,  by  the 

proper  answer  to   the  question,  what   is  mo- 
Motive,    what?    The  ^j       p      jj^g       j^       ^    ^    ■  j 

Inducement  not  Motive.  .     .        ,  .  ^,  ,. 

self-moved,  what  is  it  which  precedes  the  voli- 
tion, and  is  the  true  cause  ?  I  reply,  by  distinguishing  between 
.motive  and  inducement.  The  inducement  is  that  external 
object,   towards   which   the   desire    tends,   in   rising  to    choice. 


128  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Thus,  the  gold  seen  by  the  thief  is  the  inducement  to  his  voh- 
tion  to  steal.  But  the  perception  of  the  gold  is  not  his  motive 
to  that  volition.  His  motive  is  the  cupidity  of  his  own  soul, 
projecting  itself  upon  the  gold.  And  this  cupidity,  (as  in  most 
instances  of  motive,)  is  a  complex  of  certain  conceptions  of  the 
intellect,  and  concupiscence  of  the  heart ;  conceptions  of  various 
utilities  of  the  gold,  and  concupiscence  towards  the  pleasures 
which  it  could  procure.  The  inducement  is  objective ;  the  mo- 
tive is  subjective.  The  inducement  is  merely  the  occasion,  the 
motive  is  the  true  cause  of  the  resulting  volition.  The  object 
which  is  the  inducement  projects  no  force  into  the  thief's  soul. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  the  passive  object  of  a  force  of  soul  pro- 
jected upon  it.  The  moral  power  is  wholly  from  within  out- 
wards. The  action  is  wholly  that  of  the  thief's  soul,  the  induce- 
ment is  only  acted  on.  The  proof  of  this  all  important  view  is 
in  this  case.  The  same  purse  of  gold  is  seen,  in  the  same  cir- 
cumstances of  opportunity  and  privacy,  by  two  men ;  the  second 
is  induced  by  it  to  steal :  on  the  first,  it  had  no  such  power.  Why 
the  difference  ?  The  difference  must  be  subjective  in  the  two 
men,  because  objectively,  the  two  cases  are  identical.  Your 
good  sense  leads  you  to  explain  the  different  results  by  the  dif- 
fering characters  of  the  two  men.  You  say  :  "  It  is  because  the 
first  man  was  honest,  the  second  covetous."  That  is  to  say,  the 
causative  efficiency  which  dictated  the  two  volitions  was,  in  each 
case,  from  within  the  two  men's  souls,  not  from  the  gold. 
Besides,  the  objects  of  sense  are  inert,  dead,  senseless,  and  de- 
void of  will.  It  is  simply  foolish  to  conceive  of  them  as  emit- 
ting a  moral  activity.  The  thief  is  the  only  agent  in  the 
case. 

This  plain  view  sheds  a  flood  of  light  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  will.     A    volition    has    always    a    cause, 

neceTsltySe. '''^'''  ""^  '^^^^^^^  i^  ^^^^  (subjective)  motive.  This  cause 
is  efficient,  otherwise  the  effect,  volition, 
would  not  follow.  But  the  motive  is  subjective ;  i.  e.,  it  is  the 
agent  judging  and  desiring,  just  as  truly  as  the  volition  is  the 
agent  choosing.  And  this  subjective  desire,  causative  of  the 
choice,  is  a  function  of  the  agent's  activity,  not  of  his  passivity. 
The  desire  is  as  much  of  the  agent's  spontaneity  (self-action) 
as  is  the  choosing.  Thus  is  corrected  the  monstrous  view  of 
those  who  deduced  a  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  the  will  from 
a  sensualistic  psychology.  If  volition  is  efficiently  caused  by 
desire,  and  if  desire  is  but  the  passive  reflex  of  objective  per- 
ception, then,  indeed,  is  man  a  mere  machine.  His  seeming 
free-agency  is  wholly  deceptive ;  and  his  choice  is  dictated 
from  without.  Then,  indeed,  the  out-cry  of  the  semi-Pelagian 
against  such  a  necessity  is  just.  But  inducement  is  not  motive; 
desire  is  an  activity,  and  not  a  passivity  of  our  souls.  Our  own 
subjective  judgments  and  appetencies  cause  our  volitions. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  plain,  that  the  adaptation 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 29 

Indncement  receives  ^^  ^"7  object  to  be  an  inducement  to  volition, 
its  influence  from  the  depends  on  some  Subjective  attribute  of 
subjective  disposition,  appetency  in  the  agent.  This  state  of  appe- 
tency is  a  priori  to  the  inducement,  not  created  by  it,  but 
conferring  on  the  object  its  whole  fitness  to  be  an  inducement. 
In  other  words,  when  we  seek  to  propagate  a  volition,  by  hold- 
ing out  an  inducement  as  occasion,  or  means,  we  always 
presuppose  in  the  agent  whom  we  address,  some  active  pro- 
pensity. No  one  attempts  to  allure  a  hungry  horse  with  bacon, 
or  a  hungry  man  with  hay.  Why !  Common  sense  recognizes 
in  each  animal  an  a  priori  state  of'  appetite,  which  has  already 
determined  to  which  of  them  the  bacon- shall  be  inducement, 
and  to  which  the  hay.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  spiritual 
desires,  love  of  applause,  of  power,  of  justice,  &c.  Hence,  it 
follows,  that  inducement  has  no  power  whatever  to  revolutionize 
the  subjective  states  of  appetency  natural  to  an  agent.  The 
effect  cannot  determine  its  own  cause. 

From  this  point  of  view  may  also  be  seen  the  justice  of 
that  philosophy  of  common  sense,  with  which  we  set  out ;  when 
we  remarked  that  every  one  regarded  a  man's  free  acts  as  in- 
dices of  an  abiding  or  permanent  character.  This  is  only  be- 
cause the  abiding  appetencies  of  soul  decide  which  objects 
shall  be,  and  which  shall  not,  be  inducements  to  choice. 

The  student  will  perceive  that  I  have  not  used  the  phrase, 
"  freedom  of  the  will."     I  exclude  it,  because 
om      la  .  persuaded  that  it  is  inaccurate,  and  that  it  has 

occasioned  much  confusion  and  error.  Freedom  is  properly 
predicated  of  a  person,  not  of  a  faculty.  This  was  seen  by 
Locke,  who  says,  B.  2,  ch.  21,  sec.  10,  "  Liberty  is  not  an  idea 
belonging  to  volition,  or  preferring,  but  to  the  person  having  the 
power."  This  is  so  obviously  true,  as  to  need  no  argument.  I 
have  preferred  therefore  to  use  the  phrase,  at  once  popular  and 
exact :  "  free  agency,"  and  "  free  agent."  Turrettin  (Loc.  x, 
Qu.  i)  sees  this  objection  to  the  traditionary  tQvm,  "  Libetimi 
arbitrinm,"  and  hesitates  about  its  use.  But,  after  carefully  de- 
fining it,  he  concedes  to  custom  that  it  may  be  cautiously  used,  in 
the  stipulated  sense  of  the  freedom  of  the  Agent  who  wills.  It 
would  have  been  safer  to  change  it. 

I  have  also  preferred  to  state  and  argue  the  old  question  as 
to  the  nature  of  free  agency,  in  the  common  form  it  has  borne 
in  the  history  of  theology,  before  I  embarrassed  the  student 
with  any  of  the  attempted  modifications  of  the  doctrine.  Locke, 
following  the  sensualistic  definition,  says  that  "  liberty  is  the  idea 
of  a  power  in  any  agent  to  do  or  forbear  any  particular  action, 
according  to  the  determination  or  thought  of  the  mind."  But 
more  profound  analysts,  as  Reid  and  Cousin,  saw  that  it  con- 
sists in  more  than  the  sensualist  would  represent :  mere  privi- 
lege to  execute  outwardly  what  we  have  willed.  My  conscious- 
ness insists,  that  I  am  also  a  free  Agent  in  having  that  volition. 
9- 


13c  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

There,  is  the  essential  feature  of  choice  ;  there,  the  rational  pref- 
erence first  exhibits  itself.  The  rational  psychologists,  conse- 
quently, assert  the  great,  central  truth,  that  the  soul  is  self-de- 
termining. They  see  clearly  that  the  soul,  and  not  the  objec- 
tive inducement,  is  the  true  cause  of  its  own  acts  of  choice  ; 
and  that  hence  man  is  justly  responsible.  But  in  order  to  sus- 
tain this  central  point,  they  vacillate  towards  the  old  semi-Pe- 
lagian absurdity,  that  notonly  the  man,  but  the  separate  faculty 
of  will,. is  self-determined.  They  fail  to  grasp  the  real  facts  as 
to  the  nature  and  the  power  of  subjective  motive,  the  exercise 
of  another  set  of  faculties  in  the  soul.  Edwards  saw  more  per- 
spicaciously.  Teaching  that  motive  efficaciously  determines  the 
will,  he  defined  motive,  as  all  that  which,  to- 
Motive,  What?  gether,  moves  the  will  to  choice.  It  is 
always  a  complex  of  some  view  or  judgment  of  the  understand- 
ing, and  some  movement  of  appetency  or  repulsion  as  to  an 
object.  These  two  elements  must  be,  at  least  virtually  and  im- 
plicitly, in  the  precedaneous  state  of  soul ;  or  choice,  volition, 
would  not  result.  The  intelligence  has  seen  some  object  in  the 
category  of  the  true  (or  at  least  has  thought  it  saw  it  thus),  and 
the  appetency  has  moved  towards  it  as  in  the  category  of  the 
desirable  ;  else,  no  deliberate,  affirmative  volition  had  occurred. 
The  mere  presence  and  perception  of  the  object  is  the  occasion  ; 
the  soul's  own  judgment  and  appetency  form  the  cause  of  the 
act  of  choice. 

But  what  is  appetency  ?     If  we  conformed  it  with  passion, 

with  mere  impression  on  natural  sensibilities. 
Desire  is  not  Passive.  ^^  ^^^j^  ^^j^  -^^^  ^^^  f-^^^j  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^j^^  g^^^^^, 

alist.  Sir  Wm.  Hamilton  has  done  yeoman's  service  to  truth, 
by  illustrating  the  difference  (while  he  has  claimed  more  than 
due  credit  for  originating  the  distinction).  He  separates  the 
passive  powers  of  "  sensibility,"  from  the  active  powers  of  "  co- 
nation." This  is  but  the  old  (and  correct)  Calvinistic  classifi- 
cation of  the  powers  of  the  soul  under  "  understanding,"  "  affec- 
tions," and  "will."  Here,  be  it  noted,  the  word  "will"  is  taken, 
as  in  some  places  of  our  Confession,  in  a  much  wider  sense  than 
the  specific  faculty  of  choice.  "  Will"  here  includes  all  the 
active  powers  of  the  soul,  and  is  synonymous  with  Sir  Wm. 
Hamilton's  "  conative"  powers.  When  we  say,  then,  that  man's 
boul  is  self-determining,  we  mean  that,  in  the  specific  formation 
of  choice,  the  soul  choosing  is  determined  by  a  complex  of  pre- 
vious functions  of  the  same  soul  seeing  and  desiring.  In  this 
sense  the  soul  is  free.  But,  as  has  been  stated,  no  cause  in  the 
universe  acts  lawlessly.     "Order  is  heaven's  first  law."     And  the 

regulative  law  of  souls,  when  causing  voli- 
.  Disposition  the  all-  ^-  ■    f     ^  j    their  dispositions.     This  all- 

important  1'  act.  .  '  .  •        1  1  1 

unportant  fact  m  free-agency, is  what  the  scho- 
lastic divines  called  Ilahitits  (not  Consuctudo).  It  is  the  same 
i:otion  popularly  expressed  by  the  word  character.     We  know 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I3I 

that  man  has  such  Juibitus,  or  disposition,  which  is  more  abiding 
than  any  access,  or  one  series  of  acts  of  any  one  desire.  For  . 
we  deem  that  in  a  knave,  for  instance,  evil  disposition  is  present 
while  he  is  eating,  or  laughing,  or  asleep,  or  while  thinking  of 
anything  else  than  his  knavish  plans.  If  we  will  reflect,  we 
shall  see  that  we  intuitively  ascribe  disposition,  of  some  sort,  to 
every  rational  free  agent :  indeed  we  cannot  think  such  an  ob- 
ject without  it.  God,  angel,  demon,  man,  each  is  invariably 
conceived  as  having  some  abiding  disposition,  good  or  bad.  It 
is  in  this  that  we  find  the  regulative  principle  of  the  free-agency 
of  all  volition  rises  according  to  subjective  motive.  Subjective 
motive  arises  (freely)  according  to  ruling  subjective  disposition. 
Disposition  also  is  spontaneous — its  very  nature  is  to  act  freely. 
Here  then,  we  have  the  two  ultimate  factors  of  free  agency ; 
Spontaneity,  Disposition,  Here  we  are  at  the  end  of  all  possible 
analysis.  It  is  as  vain  to  ask  :  "Why  am  I  disposed  thus?"  as 
to  seek  a  prior  root  of  my  spontaneity.  The  fact  of  my  re- 
sponsibility as  a  free  agent  does  not  turn  on  the  answer  to  the 
question  :  it  turns  on  this  :  that  the  disposition,  which  is  actually 
my  own  will,  regulates  the  rise  freely  of  just  the  subjective  mo- 
tives I  entertain.  Let  the  student  ponder  my  main  argument 
(on  pages  122  to  124)  and  he  will  see  that  in  no  other  way  is 
the  free  agency  of  either  God,  angel,  or  sinner,  to  be  construed 
by  us. 

Dr.  McCosh  (Div.  and  Moral  Gov.  as  cited  in  the  syllabus,) 

wrests  the  true  doctrine  in  some  degree.    He 
McCosn's  view  of  the     '    n     ,1  -ii   .1       ,,        ,    ,•        r        1-      x  -i 

•vviii.  calls  the  will  the     optative  faculty,    correctly 

distinguishing  desire  from   sensibility,  (which 

he  terms  emotion.)     But  he  erroneously  confounds  appetency 

and  volition  together  as  the  same  functions  of  one  power.     That 

this  is  not  correct,  is  evinced  by  one  short  question  :     May   not 

the  soul  have  two  competing  appetencies,    and  choose  between 

them  ?     We  must  hold  fast,  with  the  great  body  of  philosophers, 

to  the  fact,  that  the  power  of  decision,  or  choice,  is  unique,  and 

not  to  be  confounded  even   with   subjective  desires.     It  is  the 

executive     faculty.      Dr.    McCosh    concedes    that    motive    (as 

defined    by   Edwards)    efficaciously   decides  the  will ;    but    he 

then  asserts,  with    Coleridge,  that  the  will  determines  motives. 

Conceding  this,  he  has  virtually  surrendered  his  doctrine  to  the 

Arminian,   and  gotten  around  to  a   literal  self-determination  of 

the  will.  He  seems  to  have  been  misled  by  an  inaccurate  glimpse 

of  the  truth  I  stated  on  p.  102,  that  the  disposition  determines  a 

priori  which  sorts  of  objects  shall  be  inducements  to  it.     There 

is  a   two-fold  confusion  of  this  profound  and  important  truth. 

Disposition  is  not  the  will ;    but   a  regulative  principle   of  the 

appetencies,  or  "  optative  "  functions,  through  them  controlling 

the  will.       And,  second,   it  is  wholly  another  thing  to  say,  that 

this  disposition  decides  which  objects  shall  be  inducements,  the 

occasions   only  of  volitions ;  and  to  say  with  Dr.  McCosh,  that 


132  SYLL.-\_BUS    AND    NOTES 

the  will  chooses  among  the  soul's  own  subjective  motives,  the 

verce  causes  of  the  very  acts  of  choice  ! 

Dr.  Isaac  Watts,  as  is  often  stated,  attempted  to   modify 

,    .  the  doctrine  of  the  will,  by  supposing^  that  we 

W^atts  view. 

had   inverted  the  order  of  cause   and  effect. 

He  deemed  that  we  do  not  choose  an  object  because  we  have 
desired  it ;  but  that  we  desire  it  because  we  have  chosen  it. 
In  other  words,  he  thought  desire  the  result,  and  not  the 
forerunner  of  choice.  This  scheme  obviously  leaves  the 
question  unanswered:  How  do  volitions  arise  ?  And  by  seem- 
ing to  leave  them  without  cause,  he  favors  the  erroneous  scheme 
of  the  Arminian.  It  is  enough  to  say,  that  no  man's  conscious- 
ness, properly  examined,  will  bear  out  this  position.  Do  we 
not  often  have  desires  where,  in  consequence  of  other  causes  in 
the  mind,  we  form  no  volition  at  all?  This  question  will  be  seen 
decisive. 

Dr.  Albert  Taylor  Bledsoe,  in  his  Reply  to  Edwards,  The- 

„,  ,     ,     .  odicy,  and  other  essays,    attempts  to   modif\^ 

xjledsoe  s  view  •^  .  '^  ■*■  .         . 

the  Arminian  th&ory,  without  surrendering  it. 
He  is  too  perspicacious  to  say,  with  the  crowd  of  semi-Pelagians, 
that  volitions  are  uncaused  results  in  the  mental  world  ;  he 
knows  too  well  the  universality  of  the  great,  necessary  intuition, 
ex  7iihilo  nihil.  But  denying  that  motives,  even  subjective,  are 
cause  of  acts  of  choice,  he  says  the  mind  is  the  immediate  cause  of 
them.  He  seems  here  to  approach  very  near  the  orthodox 
view.  Even  Dr.  Alexander  could  say,  while  denying  the 
self-determination  of  the  will,  that  he  Was  ready  to  admit  the 
self-determination  of  the  mind.  But  this  concession  of  Dr. 
Bledsoe  does  not  bring  him  to  the  correct  ground.  It  leaves 
the  question  unexplained,  in  what  way  the  mind  is  determined 
from  within  to  choice.  It  refuses  to  accept  the  efficient  influ- 
ence of  subjective  motive.  It  still  asserts  that  any  volition  maj;- 
be  contingent  as  to  its  use,  thus  embodying  the  essential 
features  of  Arminianism.  And  above  all :  it  fails  to  see  or 
admit  the  most  fundamental  fact  of  all;  that  original  disposition 
which  regulates  each  being's  desires  and  volitions.  The 
applications  which  this  author  makes  of  his  modified  doctrine 
betray  still  its  essential  Arminianism. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  only  necessary  at  this  place  to  say  in 
one  word,  that  the  disposition  which  is  found  in  every  natural 
man,  as  to  God  and  godliness,  is  depravity.  Hence  his  will, 
according  to  the  theory  expounded  above,  is,  in  the  Scriptural 
sense,  in  bondage  to  sin,  while  he  remains  properly  a  free  and 
responsible  agent. 


LECTURE  XII. 

THE  RESPONSIBILITY  AND  PROVINCE  OF  REASON 
IN   RELIGION. 


SYLLABUS, 

1.  Have  dispositions  and  desires,  which  are  a  priori  to  volition,  a  moral  char- 
acter ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  2.     Dick,  Lect.  105,  on  loth  Com.  Dr.  Julias  Muller, 

Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin.     Hodge,  Theology,  pt.  ii,  ch.  5.  Alexander's  Moral 

Science,  ch.  20,  22,  23,  27.     Edwards  on  tlie  Will,  pt.  iv,  \  i. 

2.  Is  Man  responsible  for  his  Beliefs  ? 

Alexander's  Moral  Science,  ch.  9,  Lect.  on  Evidences,  Univ.  of  Va.,  Lect.  i. 
Review  of  the  above  by  Dr.  C.  R.  Vaughan,  Southern  Lit.  Messenger,  1851. 

3.  "What  is  the  proper  province  of  Reason  in  Revealed  Theology  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  i.  Vol.  i,  Qu.  8,  9,  10.  Thornwell's  Lect.  Vol.  i,  Lect.  i. 
Hodge's  Outlines,  ch.  2.  Hodge's  Syst.  Theology,  pt.  i,  ch.  3,  Milner's 
"End  of  Controversy."     Hill's  Divinity,  bk.  ii,  ch.  5. 

"V^ZlDE  difference  of  opinion  has  long  prevailed,  as  to  man's 

responsibility  for  the  dispositions,  habits  and  desires  tend- 

.   „  ing  to  moral  volitions.     Pelagians  and  semi- 
Is  concupiscence  sm  r   T^,.  ,1,-  -l-f. 

Pelagians  say,  that  since  responsibinty  cannot 
be  more  extended  than  freedom  of  the  will,  no  praise  or  blame 
can  be  attached  to  dispositions,  which  they  hold  to  be  invol- 
untary. And  they  say  that  Calvinists  cannot  dispute  the 
latter  statement,  because  they  make  dispositions  causes  of 
volition,  and  thus  going  before.  Hence,  also,  is  the  Pelagian 
definition  of  sin  and  holiness,  as  consisting  only  of  right  or 
wrong  acts  of  soul.  The  evangelical  Arminian  is  usually  found 
holding  the  middle  ground,  that  only  those  dispositions,  habits 
and  desires  have  a  moral  responsibility  attached  to  them,  which 
have  resulted  from  a  series  of  acts  of  free-will.  But  we  hold 
that  man  is  praise-  or  blame-worthy  for  his  dispositions,  princi- 
ples and  habits,  as  well  as  for  his  volitions ;  and  that  his 
responsibility  depends  on  the  nature,  and  not  on  the  origin,  of 
the  disposition  which  he  spontaneously  and  intelligently 
entertains. 

We  make  our  appeal  here  to  consciousness,  which  causes 
us  shame  and  self-reproach  for  evil  propensities  not  ripened  into 
volitions,  and  tells  us  that  we  would  feel  equal  resentment  for 
evil  dispositions  towards  us  and  our  rights,  though  never  formed 
into  the  overt  intention  of  injury.  2d.  Our  minds  intuitively 
judge  that  the  moral  character  of  an  act  resides  in  its  motives. 
Witness  the  process  of  investigation  in  the  charge  for  crime 
before  a  jury.  Indeed,  the  act  of  volition,  nakedly  considered, 
is  a  merely  natural  effect,  and  has  no  more  moral  character  than 
the  muscular  motions  which  follow  it.  For  the  volition  which 
extends  the  hand  with  alms  to  an  enemy,  or  with  a  bribe  to  one 
to  commit  a  sin,  is  the  same  physical  volition :  we  must  go  back 


134  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  it,  to  the  motive  by  which  it  was  caused,  to  settle  its  moral 
character.  That  element  is  not  in  the  naked  volition  ;  says  the 
Pelagian,  it  is  not  in  the  motives  prior  to  volition ;  then  it  is 
nowhere  !  3d.  The  notion  is  inconsistent  with  our  established 
idea  about  character.  Here  is  a  man  who  is  said  to  have  a 
dishonest  character.  It  only  becomes  cognizable  to  us  by  his 
acts.  He  must,  then,  have  performed  a  series  of  acts,  having 
the  common  quality  of  dishonesty.  Now,  nothing  comes  from 
nothing;  there  must  be  some  cause  for  that  sameness  of  char- 
acter; and  that  cause  is  the  prevalent  disposition  .  to  steal, 
separate  from,  and  prior  to,  each  thievish  act.  For  the  bad 
cause  cannot  be  in  the  will  itself;  this  would  be  peculiarly 
objectionable  to  the  Pelagian.  This,  then,  is  what  is  meant 
when  this  man  is  said  to  have  a  bad  character.  Has  the  word 
bad  here,  no  proper  meaning?  Does  the  family  of  daughters, 
the  separate  acts,  bear  no  relationship  to  their  mother  ?  4th. 
On  the  Pelagian  scheme,  the  wickedness  of  sins  of  omission 
would  be  inexplicable.  For  in  them,  there  is  often  no  volition 
at  all;  and  therein  consists  their  wickedness.  A  man  passinej 
by  the  water  sees  an  innocent  child  drowning ;  the  idea  oT 
rescue  is  suggested  to  his  mind ;  but  he  comes  to  no  choice, 
does  nothing,  and  while  he  hesitates,  the  child  sinks  to  rise  no 
more.  Is  he  innocent?  Our  conscience  declares  that  he  is 
not.  Now,  we  can  consistently  explain  wherein  he  is  not,  viz., 
in  the  state  of  his  selfish  and  indolent  feelings.  But  the  oppo- 
site party  have  no  explanation.  There  has  literally  been  no 
volition  ;  on  their  theory  they  should  say,  what  every  sound 
conscience  rejects,  that  the  neglect  has  been  attended  with  no 
guilt.  5th.  A  similar  argument  is  presented  by  instances  of 
impulsive  and  unpremeditated  acts,  done  before  we  have  a 
moment  for  reflection.  We  properly  approve  or  blame  them, 
according  as  they  are  generous  or  malignant.  But  there  has 
been  no  intelligent,  deliberate  choice  ;  if  we  confine  our  view 
exclusively  to  the  act  of  soul  itself,  it  appears  as  purely  irra- 
tional as  the  impulses  of  mere  animal  instinct.  The  moral 
quality  of  these  acts  must  be  found,  then,  in  the  dispositions 
and  principles  which  prompted  them. 

Such  are  the  reasonings,  drawn  from  the  conscience  and 
consciousness  of  all  men.  The  conclusion 
cannot  be  restricted  in  the  way  proposed  by 
the  Arminian,  For,  if  original  or  congenital  dispositions  have 
no  moral  quality,  because  not  created  by  a  series  of  acts  of 
intelligent  free-will,  then :  1st.  God  could  never  have  any  moral 
credit,  His  holy  disposition  having  been  not  only  original  and 
eternal,  but  necessary.  2d.  Nor  could  the  holy  man,  iVdam,  or 
the  holy  angels  have  been  approvable,  though  perfectly  inno- 
cent, because  their  holy  dispositions  were  infused  into  them  by 
their  creator.  This  contradicts  both  conscience  and  Scripture. 
3d.  When    mankind    see    an    inherited    trait    influencing    the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 35 

conduct,  like  the  traditionary  bravery  of  the  Briton,  or  the 
congenital  vengefulness  of  the  American  Indian,  if  they  appre- 
hend that  the  agents  are  not  lunatic,  and  are  exercising  a  sane 
spontaneity  as  qualified  by  these  natural  traits,  they  approve  or 
blame  them.  This  shows  that  in  the  judgment  of  common 
sense,  the  responsibility  turns  only  on  the  question,  what  the 
disposition  is,  and  not,  whence  it  is.  Last :  on  this  view,  it 
would  be  impossible  that  the  free  agent  could  ever  construct  a 
righteous  disposition,  or  habitus,  by  his  own  free  acts.  For  all 
are  agreed  in  that  rule  of  practical  law,  which  judges  the  moral 
complexion  of  the  act  according  to  the  agent's  intention.  But 
a  soul  as  yet  devoid  of  positively  righteous  principles  would 
harbor  no  positively  moral  intentions.  Hence,  the  first  act  of 
choice  which  the  philosophers  look  to,  for  beginning  the  right 
moral  habitude,  would  have  no  moral  quality,  not  being 
dictated  by  a  moral  motive.  Then  it  could  contribute  nothing 
to  the  habit  as  a  moral  one.  This  very  plain  demonstration 
decides  the  whole  matter,  by  showing  that,  on  either  the  Pela- 
gian or  Arminian  scheme,  a  dependent  being  could  never  have 
a  positively  righteous  character  or  action  at  all. 

Our  opponents  argue  that  the  involuntary  cannot  be  sin, 
But  obiected  "That    ^'^'^^  they  suppose  that  they  have  intrenched 
the  involuntary  cannot    themselves  in  the  plainest  of  moral  intuitions. 
^^  ^'"•"  The  objection  is,  none  the    less,  a  sophism 

.  founded  in  the  ambiguous  use  of  the  word  involuntary.  Man's 
moral  dispositions  are  involuntary,  in  the  sense  that  they 
do  not  immediately  result  from  volitions  as  their  next  cause. 
But  this  is  not  the  sense  in  which  our  intuitions  assert  the  neces- 
sity of  the  voluntary  to  our  responsibility.  There  is  an  entirely 
different  sense,  in  which  we  say  an  act  is  involuntary,  when  it 
occurs  against  the  choice  of  the  will.  Thus,  the  fall  of  the 
man  over  the  precipice  was  involuntary,  when  he  was  striving 
to  cleave  to  the  edge  of  the  stone.  This  is  the  sense  in  which 
we  say  that,  self-evidently,  the  man  was  not  blamable  for  his 
fall.  The  other  meaning,  sophistically  confounded  with  this, 
raises  the  question  whether  the  state  or  disposition  is  spontan- 
eous. If  it  acts  spontaneously,  not  because  a  stronger  agent 
forces  the  man  to  harbor  or  to  indulge  it  against  his  choice, 
then,  in  the  sense  necessary  to  free  agency,  disposition  is  vol- 
untary ;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  spontaneous  ;  it  is  as  truly  a  function 
of  self-love  as  volition  itself  The  evidence  is  very  near  and 
plain.  Does  any  external  compulsion  cause'  us  to  feel  our 
dispositions?  No.  From  their  very  nature  it  cannot  be:  a 
compelled  tendency  would  not  be  our  disposition,  but  a 
violence  put  upon  it.  The  main  question  may  be  submitted  to 
a  very  practical  test.  Would  a  disposition  to  a  wicked  act 
subsist,  even  as  not  consented  to  or  formed  into  a  purpose,  in  a 
perfectly  holy  soul,  like  that  of  Gabriel,  for  one  instant  ?  It 
would  die  in  its  very  incipiency.     The  attempt  to  inject  concu- 


136  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

piscence,  would  be  like  an  attempt  to  strike  sparks  from  the 
flint  and  steel,  in  a  perfect  vacuum.  The  fire  would  expire  in 
being  born.  But  if  the  holiness  of  the  nature  thus  excluded 
the  birth,  this  clearly  shows  that  the  very  birth  of  wrong 
desire  or  tendency  is  wrong. 

Another  objection  is  ;  that  our  theory  of  the  immorality 
Answer  to  objection  of  Gvil  dispositions  would  imply  that  the 
that  Soul's  essence  can-  soul's  essence  is  altered  ;  or  that  depravity  is 
not  be  depraved.  ^  change  in  the  substance  of  the  soul :  which 

would  make  God  the  author  of  sin,  and  man  an  unfortunate, 
sentient  puppet.  For,  say  they,  there  is  nothing  but  the  soul 
and  its  acts ;  and  if  you  deny  that  all  morality  resides  in  acts, 
some  of  it  must  reside  in  the  essence  of  the  soul  itself.  The 
sophism  of  this  argument  would  be  sufficiently  exposed  by  ask- 
ing, what  is  a  moral  act.  If  you  make  it  anything  more  than 
a  mere  notional  object  of  thought,  an  imagination  about  which 
we  think,  is  it  any  thing  besides  the  soul  acting  ?  Well:  in  the 
same  sense,  our  moral  dispositions  are  but  our  souls  feeling.  I 
reply  again,  and  yet  more  decisively,  that  immoral  quality  is 
only  negative — i.  e.,  ^ H  d-imoria  iazc'j  d'^o/ua.  It  is  the  lack  of 
conformity  to  God's  will,  which  constitutes  sin.  The  negative 
absence  of  this  principle  of  active  conformity  is  all  that  is  neces- 
sary to  predicate.  Thus,  the  idea  of  depravity's  being  a  sub- 
stantial change  is  seen  to  be  out  of  the  question.  We  might 
farther  reply  to  the  challenge,  whether  there  is  anything  before 
us,  save  the  soul  and  its  acts :  Yes.  There  is  the  soul's  essence, 
distinguishable  from  its  substance :  there  is  its  disposition : 
there  are  its  liabilities,  its  affections,  its  desires.  The  terms  of 
the  civil  are  no  more  than  a  verbal  quibble.  What  true  philoso- 
pher ever  questioned  the  existence  of  qualities,  qualifying  a 
spirtual  agent,  yet  not  implying  either  decomposition  or  change 
of  its  simple  substance  ?  Then  it  is  possible  that  it  may  be 
qualified  morally. 

The  question  whether  man  is  responsible  for  his  belief,  is 
nearly  connected  with  the  one  just  discussed. 
forhisSeS.'''"''''^^^  ^Ia"y  modern  writers  have  urged  that  he  is 
not,  because  belief  is  the  necessary  and  in- 
voluntary result  of  evidence  seen  by  the  mind.  Further,  it  is 
urged  ;  if  the  doctrine  that  man  is  responsible  for  his  belief  be 
held,  then  the  horrible  doctrine  of  persecution  will  follow  ;  for 
erroneous  beliefs  being  often  very  mischievous,  if  also  criminal, 
it  would  follow  that  they  ought  to  be  punished  by  society.  To 
the  first,  I  reply,  that  while  the  admission  of  demonstrative 
proofs,  when  weighed  by  the  mind  is  necessary,  and  involuntary, 
the  voluntary  powers  have  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  question 
whether  they  shall  be  weighed  fairly  or  not.  Inattention,  pre- 
judice against  the  truth  or  the  advocate,  heedlessness,  guilty  and 
wicked  habits  of  perverting  the  soul's  faculties ;  all  these  are 
voluntary;  and  I  fearlessly  assert,  that  no  erroneous  belief  on 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 3/ 

any  important  moral  question  can  arise  in  a  sane  mind,  except 
through  the  operation  of  one  or  more  of  these  causes.  In  this, 
then,  is  the  guilt  of  false  beliefs  on  moral  subjects.  To  the 
second  objection,  I  reply  that  it  does  not  follow,  because  a  man 
is  responsible  for  his  beliefs,  he  is  responsible  to  his  fellow-man. 
There  are  abundant  reasons  for  denying  the  latter,  which  it 
would  be  easy  to  show,  if  I  were  going  into  the  subject  of  free- 
dom of  thought. 

On  the  affirmative  side,   I   remark,  first :  that  all  the  analo- 
gies of  nature  show  us  a  Providence  holding 

Because  Nature  and    ^^^^  responsible  for  his  beliefs.     If  prejudice, 

Pi-ovidence  rule  thus.  .        f^  .  .  r     j  ' 

passion,   haste,    inattention,   prevents  a  man 

from  attaching  due  weight  to  testimony  or  other  evidence,  as  to 
the  poison  of  a  given  substance,  he  experiences  its  effects  just 
as  though  he  had  taken  it  of  set  purpose.  So  of  all  other 
things. 

Second :    Conscience  clearly  condemns  many  acts,  based 
Because  aU  wrong  be-  immediately  on    certain    beliefs,  which  were 
liefs  have  a    criminal   sincerely  held  at  the  time   of  acting.    Now, 
<^^us^-  if    the   belief    had    been    innocent,   the   act 

necessarily  dictated  thereby  could  not  have  been  blame-worthy. 
Witness  Paul,  confessing  the  sin  of  his  persecutions.  Indeed, 
since  belief  on  moral  subjects  ought  to,  and  must  dictate  con- 
duct, if  man  is  allowed  to  be  a  rational  free  agent,  each  man's 
own  belief  must  be  his  own  guide ;  and  hence  an  act  might  be 
right  to  one  man,  and  wrong  to  another,  at  the  same  time.  A 
would  have  a  right  (because  he  believed  so)  to  a  thing  which  B 
had  a  right  to  ;  and  so  B  would  have  a  moral  right  to  do  A  what 
would  be  to  him  a  moral  wrong?  And  farther;  since  whatever 
a  man  sincerely  believed,  would  be  right  to  him,  truth  would 
cease  to  be  of  any  essential  importance.  This  consequence  is 
monstrous.  Hence  we  must  hold  men  responsible  for  their 
moral  beliefs.  God  could  not  otherwise  govern  a  world  of  ra- 
tional free  agents  ;  for  since  the  free  dictates  of  each  agent's 
soul  must  be,  to  him,  the  guide  of  his  conduct,  God  could  not 
justly  condemn  him  for  committing  the  crime  which  he  sup- 
posed at  the  time  to  be  a  right  act,  after  he  had  been  acquitted 
of  all  responsibility  for  the  opinion  which  unavoidably  dictated 
the  act.  But  is  every  one  rash  enough  to  justify  all  the  crimes 
committed  in  this  world  under  the  influence  of  moral  error 
heartily  held  at  the  time  ?  Then  the  vilest  crimes  which  have 
scourged  the  world,  from  the  retaliatory  murders  of  savages 
(dictated  by  stress  of  tribal  honour)  to  the  persecution  of  God's 
saints  (by  inquisitors  who  verily  thought  they  were  doing  God 
service)  are  made  perfectly  innocent. 

It  may  be  well  to  say  a  few  more  words  to  relieve  the  seem- 
ing paradox   in   this  truth.     To  this  separate 
X  reso  ve  .       element  of  the  act,  that  it  was  conformed  to 
the  man's  opinion  of  the   right  at  the  time  ;  as  that  element  is 


138  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

abstracted  in  thought  from  all  other  features  of  the  concrete 
sin ;  we  do  not  suppose  any  criminahty  to  attach.  But  we  are 
bound  to  go  back  to  the  prior  question  :  How  came  a  being  en- 
dowed with  reason  and  conscience,  actually  to  believe  the  wrong 
to  be  right  ?  Could  this  result  have  been  innocently  brought 
about  ?  To  say  this,  would  be  to  accuse  God  his  Maker.  I  can 
apprehend  how  God's  finite  handiwork,  a  rational  soul,  may  re- 
main ignorant  of  many  truths  known  to  larger  intelligences  ; 
but  I  cannot  admit  that  it  can  be  betrayed  into  positive  error 
by  the  normal,  legitimate  exercise  of  its  powers.  There  is  then, 
always  a  prior  account  of  the  mental  perversion  :  The  condi- 
tions of  the  erroneous  result  have  been  sinful  indolence  in  look- 
ing at  evidence,  or  unrighteous  self-interest,  or  criminal  preju- 
dice against  the  truth  or  its  advocate,  or  some  other  combi- 
nation of  evil  affections.  To  these,  specifically,  attaches  the 
guilt  of  the  erroneous  mental  result.  We  see  thus,  that  belief 
is  not  the  involuntary  result  of  evidence  apprehended,  in  any 
practical  moral  case.  The  will  (taking  that  word  in  its  wider 
sense  of  the  active,  optative  powers)  has  a  great  deal  to  do  wjth 
the  result,  by  inclining  or  disposing  the  mind  to  give  proper 
heed  to  the  attainable  evidence.  So  much  weight  has  this  fact, 
that  the  profound  Des  Cartes,  who  almost  deserves  to  be  called 
the  founder  of  modern  philosophy,  actually  ranked  belief  as  a 
function  of  will,  rather  than  of  understanding!  Here  then  I 
place  myself:  when  an  action  of  soul  is  spontaneous,  it  may 
be,  to  that  extent,  justly  held  responsible. 

The  question  with  which  we  close  this  brief  review  of  the 
3.  Province  of  nature  of  man's  primary  judgments,  has  ever 
Reason  in  Revealed  been  of  fundamental  importance  in  the 
Religion.  Church  :   "  What  is   the   legitimate  province 

of  Reason,  in  revealed  theology  ? "  The  pretended  warfare 
between  reason  and  faith  has  been  waged  by  all  those  who 
wished  to  make  a  pretext  for  believing  unreasonably  and  wick- 
edly. On  the  one  hand,  it  is  possible  so  to  exalt  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  or  of  theology,  (as  is  done  by  Rome,)  as  to 
violate  the  very  capacity  of  reason  to  which  religion  appeals. 
On  the  other,  it  is  exceedingly  easy  to  give  too  much  play  to 
it,  and  admit  thus  the  virus  of  Rationahsm  in  some  of  its  forms. 

All  the  different  forms  of  rationalism,  which  admit  a  revela- 

„  ,.      ,.       ^,n   ,„    tion  as  true  or  desirable  at  all,  may  be  grouped 
Rationalism,  What?  ^     t^i  1        i     ij    «.i 

under  two  classes,    ist.    1  hose  who  hold  the 

PROTON  PSEUDOS  of  the  Socinians  ;  that  man  is  to  hold  nothing 
credible  in  religion  which  he  cannot  comprehend.  2d.  Those 
who,  like  the  modern  German  rationalists,  make  the  interpreta- 
tions of  Scripture  square  with  the  teachings  of  human  philosophy, 
instead  of  making  their  philosophy  square  with  the  plain  mean- 
ing of  revelation.  Under  the  latter  class  must  be  ranked  all 
those  who,  like  Hugh  Miller,  in  his  Testimony  of  the  Rocks, 
hold  that  the  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch,  concerning  cos- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 39 

mogony,    must  be    moulded    supremely    by    the    demands    of 

geological  theories,  instead   of  being  settled  independently  by 

its  own  laws  of  fair  exegesis.     Here,  also,  belong  those  who, 

like  A.  Barnes,  say  that  the  Bible  must  not  be  allowed  to  mean 

what  would  legitimate  American  slavery,  because  he  holds  that 

his    ethical  arguments  prove  it  cannot  be  right :    Et  id  ouuie 

gemis. 

The  absurdity  of  the  first  class  will   be   shown,  more   fully, 

when  we  come  to  deal  with  the  Socinian  the- 
Comprehension    not        1  t*.  •  1    i.  ,1     , 

the  Measure  of  Truth,    ology.     It  IS  enough  to  say  now,  that  reason 

herself  repudiates  such  a  boast  as  preposter- 
ous. She  does  not  truly  comprehend  all  of  anything  :  not  the 
whole  nature  and  physiology  of  the  blade  of  grass  which  man 
presses  with  his  foot :  nor  the  modus  of  that  union  of  body  and 
soul  which  consciousness  compels  us  to  admit.  Every  line  of 
knowledge  which  v/e  follow,  leads  us  to  the  circumference  of 
darkness,  where  it  is  lost  to  our  comprehension  ;  and  the  more 
man  knows,  the  more  frequently  is  he  compelled  to  stop  humbly 
at  that  limit,  and  acknowledge  his  lack  of  comprehension.  So 
that,  the  most  truly  wise  man  is  he  who  knows  and  believes 
most  things  which  he  does  not  comprehend.* 

That  our  comprehension  is  not  the  measure  of  truth 
appears,  again,  thus  :  Truth  is  one  and  immutable.  But  the 
amount  of  comprehension  any  given  man  has,  is  dependent  on 
his  cultivation  and  knowledge.  Thirty  years  ago  it  would 
have  been  wholly  incomprehensible  to  a  "  field-hand,"  how  a 
message  could  be  sent  along  a  wire  by  galvanism.  It  was  not 
incomprehensible  to  Dr.  Joseph  Henry,  who  actually  instructed 
Morse,  the  nominal  inventor,  how  it  might  be  done.  On  this 
Socinian  scheme,  then,  truth  would  be  contradictory  for  differ- 
ent minds.  One  man's  valid  code  of  truth  would  properly  be, 
to  a  less  cultivated  man,  in  large  part  falsehood  and  absurdity. 
But  this  is  preposterous. 

But  does  not  the  Protestant  assert,  against  the  Papist,  that 

^         ^.  faith,  in   order  to  be  of  any  worth,  must   be 

Does    this     counte-     •iii-~      i.-^      ■^^  l.  ^    ,^        ,,  •        i-- 

nance  implicit  Faith?      intelligent?     Do  not  we  scout  the  "implicit 
faith"  of  the  Papist? 
There  is  a  distinction  which  fully  solves  this  question,  and 
which  is  simple  and  important.     Every  judg- 
ment in  the  form  of  a  belief  is  expressed  in 
a  proposition.     This,  grammatically,  consists  of  subject,  predi- 
cate, and    copula.     Now,  the    condition    of   rational    belief   is, 
that  the   mind    shall   intelligently  see  some  valid    supporting 
evidence  for  the  copula.     If,  without  this,  it  announces  belief,  it 
is  acting  unreasonably.     But  it  is  wholly  another  thing  to  com- 
prehend the  whole  nature  of  the  predication ;  and  this  latter  is 

*  It  is  related  that  the  famous  Dr.  Parr,  upon  hearing  a  young  Socinian  flippantly 
say,  he  would  beUeve  nothing  he  could  not  comprehend,  answered :  "Then,  sir,  you. 
will  have  the  shortest  creed  of  any  young  gentleman  in  the  kingdom." 


140  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

not  at  all  necessary  to  a  rational  faith.  The  farmer  presents 
me  on  the  palm  of  his  hand,  a  sound  grain  of  corn,  and  a  peb- 
ble. He  says  :  "  This  is  dead,  but  that  is  alive."  IMay  I  not, 
with  him,  rationally  believe  in  the  vitality  of  the  grain  ?  Yes  : 
because  we  have  some  intelligent  view  of  the  experimen- 
tal evidence  which  supports  the  affirmation.  But  suppose 
now  I  pass  to  the  predication,  "  alive  ;  "  and  demand  of  the 
farmer  that  he  shall  give  me  a  full  definition  of  the  nature  ol 
vegetable  vitality  ?  The  greatest  physicist  cannot  do  this. 
Neither  he  nor  I  comprehend  the  nature  of  vegetable  vitality. 
We  know  by  its  effects,  that  there  is  such  a  force,  but  it  is  a 
mysterious  force.  Let  the  student  then  hold  fast  to  this  simple 
law :  In  order  to  rational  belief  there  must  be  some  intelligent 
view  of  evidence  sustaining  the  copula ;  but  there  may  be  no 
comjDrehension  of  the  nature  of  the  predicate. 

Now,  if  these  things  are  just  and  true  in  all  natural  knowl- 
edge, how  much  more  true  in  the  things  of  the  infinite  God  ? 
The  attempt  of  the  Socinian  to  make  a  god  altogether  compre- 
hensible, has  resulted  in  a  plan  attended  inevitably  with  more 
and  worse  incomprehensibilities,  yes,  impossibilities,  than  they 
reject. 

To  the  second  class  of  rationalists,  the  simple  answer 
On  Rationalist  wliich  reason  gives  is,  that  such  a  revelation 
Scheme,  no  Revealed  as  they  admit,  is  practically  no  revelation  at 
Rule  of  Faith.  g^j}_    That  is,  it  is  no  authoritative  standard  of 

belief  to  any  soul,  on  any  point  on  which  it  may  happen  to 
have  any  opinion  derived  from  other  sources  than  the  Bible. 
For  each  man's  speculative  conclusions  are,  to  him,  his  philos- 
ophy ;  and  if  one  man  is  entitled  to  square  his  Bible  to  his 
philosophy,  the  other  must  be  equally  so.  Further,  it  is  well 
known  that  the  deductions  of  all  philosophies  are  fallible.  The 
utter  inconsistency  of  Rationalism,  with  any  honest  adoption 
of  a  Revelation,  appears  thus :  It  is  the  boast  of  Rationalists, 
that  human  science  is  progressive  :  that  our  generation  is  far  in 
advance  of  our  fathers.  May  not  our  children  be  as  far  in 
advance  of  us  ?  Things  now  held  as  scientific  truth,  will  prob- 
ably be  excluded;  things  not  now  dreamed  of,  will  probably  be 
discovered  and  explained.  When  that  time  comes,  it  must 
follow  on  the  Rationalists'  scheme,  that  the  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures  shall  receive  new  modifications  from  these  new 
lights  of  reason.  Propositions  which  we  now  hold  as  the 
meaning  of  Scripture,  will  then  be  shown  by  the  lights  of 
human  science  to  be  false !  What  is  it  reasonable  that  we 
should  do,  at  this  time,  with  those  places  of  Scripture  ?  Will 
any  one  say,  "  Reserve  your  opinion  on  them,  until  the  light 
comes  ?  "  Alas  !  there  is  now  no  means  for  us  to  know  where- 
abouts in  the  Bible  they  arc!  No;  Ave  must  attempt  to 
construe  the  whole  Scripture  as  best  we  may.  Will  any  one 
say  that  our  construction  is  true  to  us,  but  will  be  false  to  our 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES  I4I 

more  scientific  childrea  ?  Hardly.  If,  therefore,  the  Bible  is  a 
revelation  from  the  infallible  God,  reason  herself  clearly  asserts 
that  where  the  plain  teachings  of  Scripture  clash  with  such 
deductions,  the  latter  are  to  be  presumed  to  be  wrong ;  and 
unless  revelation  carries  that  amount  of  authority,  it  is  practi- 
cally worthless.  Rationalism  is  the  wolf  of  infidelity  under  the 
sheep's  clothing  of  faith. 

It  follows,  then,  that  reason  is  not  to  be  the  measure,  nor 
the  ground,  of  the  beliefs  of  revealed  theology. 

But  on  the  other  hand:    1st,  the  laws   of  thought   which 

necessarily    rule    in    the    human    soul,    were 

But  Revelation  does    established  by  the  same  God  who  gave   the 

not  Violate  Reason.         t->.,  ,  tt  t     ^  •  ^      •  r 

Bible.      Hence,  it  there  is  a  revelation  irom 

Him,  and  if  these  laws  of  thought  are  legitimately  used,  there 

must  be  full  harmony  between  reason  and  Scripture.     But  man 

knows  that  he  is  not  infallible  :  he  knows  that  he  almost  always 

employs  his  powers  of  thought  with  imperfect  accuracy.      On 

the  other  hand,  if  revelation  is  admitted,  its  very  idea  implies 

infallible  truth  and  authority.     Hence,  it  is  clearly  reasonable 

that  opinion  must  always  hold  itself  .ready  to  stand  corrected 

by  revelation. 

The  Scriptures  always   address   us   as   rational   creatures, 

2d.  Necessary  laws  ^.nd  presuppose  the  authority  of  our  native, 
of  thought  must  be  fundamental  laws  of  thought.  If  we  think  at 
respected  by  it.    •  g^jj^  ^^^  must  do   it   according  to  those  laws. 

Therefore,  to  require  us  to  violate  or  ignore  them  fundamentally, 
would  be  to  degrade  us  to  unreasoning  animals ;  we  should  then 
be  as  incapable  of  religion  as  they. 

The  claim  which  the  Scriptures  address  to  us,  to  be  the  one 

3rd.  Authenticity  of  authentic  and  authoritative  revelation  from 
Revelation  not  self-evi-  God,  is  addressed  to  our  reason.  This  is  clear 
*^^"^"  from  the  simple  fact,  that  there  are  presented 

to  the  human  race  more  than  one  professed  revelation  ;  and  that 
they  cannot  be  authoritative  witnesses  to  their  own  authority 
prior  to  its  admission.  It  appears  also  from  this,  that  man  is  re- 
quired not  only  to  obey,  but  to  believe  and  love  the  Bible.  Now 
he  cannot  do  this  except  upon  evidence.  The  evidences  of  in- 
spiration must,  therefore,  present  themselves  to  man's  reason  ; 
to  reason  to  be  employed  impartially,  humbly,  and  in  the  fear 
of  God.  He  who  says  he  believes,  when  he  sees  no  proof,  is 
but  pretending,  or  talking  without  meaning. 

Among  these  evidences,   the    reason    must   entertain   this 

4th.  Revelation  can-  question  :  whether  anything  asserted  in  reve- 
not  authorize  self-con-  lation  is  inevitably  contradictory  with  reason 
ti-adictions.    L  unit  a-    qj-  gome  Other  things  asserted  in  revelation. 

tions  01  this  admission,     -r-        ■  c         ,         ,        ,         ,  ,     .        ,  1  •  ,  1  • 

ror  it  a  book  clearly  contained  such  things, 
it  would  be  proof  it  was  not  from  God  ;  because  God,  who  first 
created  our  laws  of  reason,  will  not  contradict  Himself  by  teach- 
ing incompatibles   in   His  works  and  word.     And  again  :  in  de- 


142  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

manding  faith  (always  a  sincere  and  intelligent  faith,)  of  us  in 
such  contradictories,  He  would  be  requiring  of  us  an  impossi- 
bility. If  I  see  that  a  thing  is  impossible  to  be  true,  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  believe  it.  Yet  here,  we  must  guard  this  con- 
cession against  abuse  ;  asserting  first,  that  the  reason  which  is 
entitled  to  this  judgment  of  contradiction  concerning  the  Scrip- 
tures, shall  be  only  a  right,  humble,  and  holy  reason,  acting  in 
the  fear  and  love  of  God  ;  and  not  a  reason  unsanctified,  hostile, 
and  blind.  Second,  that  the  supposed  contradiction  must  be 
contained  in  the  immediate  and  unquestioned  language  of  the 
Scripture  itself,  and  not  merely  deduced  therefrom  by  some 
supposed  inference.  And  third,  that  the  truth  supposed  to  be 
overthrown  by  it  shall  be  also  an  express  statement  of  God's 
word,  or  some  necessary,  axiomatic  truth,  universally  held  by 
mankind.  For  if  one  should  object  against  the  Bible,  that  some 
inference  he  had  drawn  from  its  words  was  irreconcilable  with 
some  similar  inference,  or  some  supposed  deduction  of  his 
human  logic,  we  should  always  be  entitled  to  reply  :  that  his 
powers  of  thought  being  confessedly  inaccurate,  it  was  always 
more  probable  he  had  inferred  erroneously,  than  that  Scripture 
had  spoken  inconsistently. 

Reason  is  also  to  be  employed  to  interpret  and  illustrate  the 
5th  Reason  and  hu-  Scriptures.  To  do  this,  the  whole  range  of 
man  knowledge  ancil-  man's  natural  knowledge  may  be  taxed.  The 
lary  to  Revelation.  interpretation   is  never  to  presume   to  make 

reason  the  measure  of  belief,  but  the  mere  handmaid  of  Scrip- 
ture. And  the  mode  of  interpretation  is  to  be  by  comparing 
Scripture  with  Scripture  according  to  the  legitimate  laws  of  lan- 
guage. The  Scripture  must  be  its  own  canon  of  hermeneutics  ; 
and  that,  independent  of  all  other  supposed  rival  sciences.  For 
otherwise,  as  has  been  shown  above,  it  would  cease  to  carry  a 
practical  authority  over  the  human  mind  as  a  rule  of  faith.  A 
Bible  which  must  wait  to  hear  what  philosophy  may  be  pleased 
to  permit  it  to  say,  and  which  must  change  its  dicta  as  often  as 
philosophy  chooses  to  change,  would  be  no  Bible  for  any  sen- 
sible man. 

Now,  the  prelatic  system  of  Church-authority  stands  op- 
posed to  this  Protestant  theory  of  private 
Faith  rests  on  Evi-    judgment.     Prelatists    claim    for  the  reason- 

dence,  not  Dictation.        •',,°  -,.,.,  ,.  , 

ableness  ot  their  slavish  system,  this  analogy  ; 
that  the  child,  in  all  its  primary  education,  has  to  accept  things 
on  trust  as  he  is  told.  Human  knowledge,  say  they,  begins  in 
dogma,  not  in  reasoning.  So  should  divine.  The  reply  is,  that 
this  is  a  false  analogy,  in  two  vital  respects.  The  secular  knowl- 
edge which  begins  absolutely  in  dogma,  is  only  that  of  signs  ; 
not  of  things  and  ultimate  truths.  The  child  must  indeed  learn 
from  dogma,  that  a  certain  rafter-shaped  mark  inscribed  on  the 
paper  is  the  accepted  sign  of  the  vowel-sound  A.  The  things 
of  God  are  not  mere  signs,  but  essential  truths.     Second,  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I43 

reception  of  divine  truth  is  not  an  infantile,  but  an  adult  work. 
We  are  required  to  do  it  in  the  exercise  of  a  mature  intelligence, 
and  to  be  infants  only  in  guilelessness. 

Prelatists  and  papists  are  fond  of  charging  that  the  theory 
of  private  judgement  amounts  simply  to 
.emffZSotir  rationalism.  For,  say  they  '■  to  malce  revel- 
ation  wait  on  reason  for  the  recognition  of 
credentials,  virtually  gives  to  the  revealed  dogma  only  the  force 
of  reason.  '  The  stream  can  rise  no  higher  than  its  'fountain.' 
On  the  Protestant  scheme,  revelation  receives  no  more  author- 
ity than  reason  may  confer."  The  only  plausibility  of  such 
objections  is  in  the  words  of  a  false  trope.  Revelation  it  i's 
said,  '  submits  its  credentials  to  the  reason,'  according  to  us 
Protestants.  Suppose  I  prefer  to  say  (the  correct  trope,)  we 
hold  that  revelation  imposes  its  credentials  upon  the  healthy 
reason.  In  fact,  as  when  the  eye  looks  at  the  sun,  there  are 
activities  of  the  organ  towards  the  result  of  vision,  such  as 
adjusting  the  axes  of  the  two  balls,  directing  them,  refracting 
the  rays,  &c.,  and  yet,  the  light  is  not  from  the  eye,  but 
from  the  sun  ;  so  in  apprehending  the  validity  of  the  Bible's 
credentials,  the  light  is  from  the  revelation ;  not  from  the  mind. 
Its  activities  about  the  apprehension  of  the  evidence,  are  only 
receptive,  not  productive. 

But  the  simple  key  to  the  answer  is,  that  the  question 
that  we  bring  to  the  human  reason,  '  Is  this  book  God  speaking  ?' 
is  one,  single  question,  perfectly  defined,  and  properly  within 
the  reach  of  reason.  The  other  question,  which  the  Rationalist 
wished  to  make  reason  answer,  is  :  '  What  are  the  things  proper 
for  God  to  say  about  Himself  and  religion  ?'  There  is,  in  fact,  a 
multitude  of  questions,  and  mostly  wholly  above  the  reach 
of  reason.  We  may  illustrate  the  difference  by  the  case  of  an 
ambassador.  The  court  to  which  he  comes  is  competent  to 
entertain  the  question  of  his  credentials.  This  is  implied  in  the 
expectation  that  this  court  is  to  treat  with  him.  The  matter  of 
credentials  is  one  definite  question,  to  be  settled  by  one  or  two 
plain  criteria,  such  as  a  signature,  and  the  imprint  of  a  seal. 
But  what  may  be  the  secret  will  of  his  sovereign,  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent set  of  questions.  To  dictate  one's  surmises  here,  and 
especially  to  annex  the  sovereign's  authority  to  them,  is  imper- 
tinent folly.  But  the  messages  of  the  plenipotentiary  carry  all 
the  force  of  the  recognized  signature  and  seal. 

Moreover,  we  must  remember  that  man's  state  is  proba- 
tionary. There  is  an  intrinsic  difference  between  truth  and 
error,  right  reasoning  and  sophism,  and  the  purpose  of  God  in 
revelation  is  (necessarily)  not  to  supplant  reason,  but  to  put  man 
on  his  probation  for  its  right  use. 

Last :    Let  the  student,  from  the  first,  discard  all  the  false 
Tvr      ,  -f     f  and  mischievous  ideas  generated  by  the  slang 

JNo    strife  of  reason  °  -^,   ^   .  ,    ,,    ° 

with  Faith.  of  the  "  contest  between  reason  and  taith.  — 


T.j  ]  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  the  propriety  of  having  "  reason  conquer,  faith,  or  faith  con- 
quer reason."  There  is  no  such  contest.  The  highest  reason  is 
to  beheve  impHcitly  what  God's  word  says,  as  soon  as  it  is  clearly 
ascertained  to  be  God's  word.  The  dictate  of  reason  herself,  is 
to  believe ;  because  she  sees  the  evidences  to  be  reasonable.* 

I  need  only  add,  that  I  hold  the  Scriptures  to  be,  in  all  its 
parts,  of  plenary  inspiration ;  and  we  shall  henceforward  assume 
this,  as  proved  by  the  inquiries  of  another  department. 


LECTURE  XIII 


REVEALED  THEOLOGY.   GOD  AND  HIS  ATTRI- 
BUTES. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Give  the  Derivation  and  Meaning  of  the  Names  applied  to  God  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  4.  Breckinridge's  Theolog}',  Vol.  i,  p.  199.  Concor- 
dances and  Lexicons. 

2.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  term,  God's  Attributes  ?     And  what  the  most 
common  Classifications  of  them  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  5,  &c.  Dick,  Lect.  21.  Breckinridge,  Vol.  i,  p.  260, 
&c.  liodge,  Syst.  Theol.  Vol.  i,  p.  369  to  372.  Thornwell,  Lect.  6,  p.  162- 
166  and  167,  &c. 

3.  What  are  the  Scriptural  evidences  of  God's  Unity,  Spirituality  and  Simplicity? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  3  and  7.     Dick,  Lect.  17  and  18. 

4.  W' hat  the  Bible-proofs  of  God's  Immensity  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  9.     Dick,  Lect.  19. 

■    5.  What  the  Scriptural  proof  of  God's  Eternity  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  10.     Dick,  Lect.  17. 

6.   Prove  from  Scripture  that  God  is  Lnmutable. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  ii.  Dick,  Lect.  20.  See  on  whole,  "Charnock  on 
the  Attributes." 

TN  approaching  the   department   of  Revealed  Theology,  the 
first  question  is  concerning  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures. 
This  having  been  settled,  we   may   proceed 
turlf  i'sumid."^  ^"'''"    t«  assume  them    as    inspired   and   infallible. 
Our  business  now  is  merely  to  ascertain  and 
collect  their  teachings,   to  systematize   them,  and  to  show  their 
relation  to  each   other.     The  task  of  the  student  of  Revealed 
Theology,  is,   therefore,   in    the    first    place,   mainly  exegetical. 
Having  discovered  the  teachings   of  revelation  by  sound  expo- 
sition, and  having  arranged  them,  he  is  to  add  nothing,  except 
what  follows  "  by  good   and   necessary  consequence."     Conse- 
quently, there  is  no  study  in  which  the  truth  is  more  important, 
that  "  with  the  lowly  is  wisdom." 

The  New  Testament,  and   still   more,  the   Old,  presents  us 


*  See,  for  the  true  nature  of  belief,  as  distinguished  from  intuition  or  deduction,. 
"Sensualistic  Phil,  of  the  19th  Cent.  Considered,"  Chap,  x,  end. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I45 

with   an   interesting  subject   of  study,  in  the 

veai  Him ''  ^''™''  '^'    ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^  G°^'  ^^^^^^^  ^^ey  employ 

to  give  our  feeble   mind  a  conception  of  His 

manifold  perfections.     The  names  "1""'  PT'   ^^  "^jl^*    ^^1^^5 

^X^^^    "'jlC^'    and  ml^^:^^*  np]  in' the  Hebrew,  and   Oso'^, 

Ku<niK"T(l'caTO-,  riavzoxpdTcoo,  in  the  Greek,  give,  of  themselves, 
an  extensive  description  of  His  nature.  For  they  are  all,  accord- 
ing to  the  genius  of  the  ancient  languages,  significant  of  some 
quality ;  and  are  thus,  when  rightly  interpreted,  proof-texts  to 
sustain  several  divine  attributes,     nlrl'^  (Jehovah)  with  its  abre- 

viation,  pn*",  (which  most  frequently  appears  in  the  doxology, 
TV  i/^n)  ^^^^  ^"^^^  ^^^"  esteemed  by  the  Church  the  most 

distinctive  and  sacred,  because  the  incommunicable  name  of 
God.  The  student  is  familiar  with  the  somewhat  superstitious 
reverence  with  which  the  later  Hebrews  regard  it,  never  pro- 
nouncing it  aloud,  but  substituting  it  in  reading  the  Scriptuies, 
by  the  word  "^^l^.     There  seems  little  doubt  that  the  sacred 

name  presents  the  same  radicals  with  nTi''^  the  future  of  the 

substantive  verb  HTi-     This  is  strikingly  confirmed  by  Exodus 

iii  :  14,  where  God,  revealing  His  name  to  Moses,  says:  nTi^ 

1D^  ^■'^^?  ("^  ^^-'^  ^-^^^^  lam")  is  His  name.    For  we  have  here, 

in  form  the  first  person  future  of  the  substantive  verb,  and  our 
Saviour,  Jno.  viii  :  58,  claiming  the  incommunicable  divinity, 
says,  imitating  this  place:  "Before  Abraham  was,  I  AM."*  In 
Ex.  vi  :  2,  3,  we  learn  that  the  characteristic  name  by  which 
God  commissioned  Moses  was  Jehovah.  This  is  an  additional 
argument  which  shows,  along  with  its  origin,  that  the  naxae 
means  self-existence  and  independence. 


'•*  This  derivation  is  illustrated  by  a  comparison,  plausible  and  interesting,  if  not 
demonstrative,  with  the  Greek  and  Latin  names  of  God,  T^tvc  and  Jove.  By  consult- 
ing Gen.  xxiv  :  4.  and  many  other  places,  we  learn  that  God  was  known  to  Abraham 
and  his  family  by  the  name  Jehovah,  In  Gen.  xxvi :  28,  we  see  that  the  Canaanites 
under  Abimelech,  of  Gerar,  still  retained  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God,  under  the 
same  name.  The  Phoenician  mythology  is  the  parent  of  the  Grecian,  as  the  Phoeni- 
cian alphabet  is  of  the  Greek.  Now  the  votaries  of  the  comparative  philology  of 
modern  days,  will  have  Zfi'j  derived  (by  a  change  of  Z  to  its  cognate  D,)  from  the 
Sanscrit  root,  Dis,  whose  root-meaning  was  supposed  to  be  splendoii}-.  To  the  same 
source  they  trace  Osoq,  Dciis,  Diviis,  Dies,  &c.  Tliis  source  may  plausibly  answer  for 
the  last  named  words.  But  as  to  Zei'f  and  Jove,  may  not  another  etymology  be  more 
probable?  (as  is  confessed  by  some  of  the  best  Greek  scholars)  that  Zcrr  is  from  Zew, 
(the  primary  meaning  of  which  is  fervere,)  and  that  this  verb  is  closely  cognate  to 
Zaw,  "I  live,"  and  Zw?;,  "life.."  Notice,  then,  the  strange  resemblance,  almost  an 
identity,  between  "Jehovah,"  and  "Jove."  The  latter,  •wi\\\  pater,  makes  the  Latin 
nominative  Jupiter —  Jov-Patcr — father  Jove.  If  this  origin  is  ti-ue,  then  we  have 
the  Greek  name  of  the  chief  God,  Zfi'f,  involving  the  same  fundamental  idea;  "The 
Living  One," — the  self-existent  source  of  life.  This  is  much  more  explanatory  of  the 
early  myths  toucliing  Jove,  as  the  "  Father  of  Gods  and  men,"  than  tiie  primary  idea 
of  the  supposed  Sanscrit  root. 
10* 


146  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Such  a  meaning  would,  of  itself,  lead  us  to  expect  that  this 
name,  with  its  kindred  derivatives,  is  never 
cable  N*nl""""""^'  ^PP^'^^  ^o  any  but  the  one  proper  God; 
because  no  other  being  has  the  attribute 
which  it  signifies.  A  further  proof  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it 
is  never  applied  as  a  proper  name,  to  any  other  being  in  Scrip- 
ture. The  angel  who  appeared  to  Abraham,  to  Moses,  and 
to  Joshua,  (Gen.  xviii  :  i  ;  Exod.  iii  :  2-4;  Josh,  v  :  13  ;  vi  :  3,) 
was  evidently  Jehovah- Christ.  When  Moses  named  the  altar 
Jehovah-nissi,  (Ex.  xvii  :  15,)  he  evidently  no  more  dreamed 
of  calling  it  Jehovah,  than  did  Abram,  when  he  called  a  place, 
(Gen.  xxii  :  14,)  Jehovah-jireh.  And  when  Aaron  said  con- 
cerning the  worship  of  the  calf:  "To-morrow  is  the  feast  of 
Jehovah,"  he  evidently  considered  the  image  only  as  represen- 
tative of  the  true  God.  But  the  last  and  crowning  evidence 
that  this  name  is  always  distinctive,  is  that  God  expressly 
reserves  it  to  Himself.  (See  Exod.  iii :  15  ;  xv  :  3  ;  xx  :  2 ;  Ps. 
Ixxxiii  :  18;  Is.  xlii  :  8;  xlviii  :  2;  Amos  v  :  8;  ix  :  6.)  The 
chief  value  of  this  fact  is  not  only  to  vindicate  to  God  exclu- 
sively the  attribute  of  self-existence  ;  but  greatly  to  strengthen 
the  argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christ.  When  we  find  the 
incommunicable  name  given  to  Him,  it  is  the  strongest  proof 
that  he  is  very  God. 

*■  j~|^5  Lord,  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Greek  Kuocoz.     Its  mean- 

"^      '  ing  is  possession  and  dominion,  expressed  by 

Other  Names.  ^.j-^g  Latin  Domiuits,  which  is  its   usual  trans- 

lation in  the  Vulgate,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
and,  unfortunately,  is  the  usual  translation  of  Jehovah  also. 
Hence  has  arisen  the  suppression  of  this  name  in  our  English 
version,  where  both  are  translated  Lord  ;  and  Jehovah  is  dis- 
tinguished only  by  having  its  translation  printed  in  capitals, 
(LORD.) 

"^  JW*  ^^  ^'^^  ^  pliiralis  excellentice ,  expressing  omnipotence. 
Sometimes,  as  in  Job  v  :  17,  it  stands  by  itself;  sometimes,  as 
in  Gen.  xvii  :  i,   it  is  connected  with  ^^  (where  it  is  rendered 

"  God   Almighty.")     This  seems  to  be  the  name  by  which   He 
entered  into  special   covenant  with  Abram.     It  appears  in  the 
New  Testament  in  its  Greek  form  of  navroxodzcoo^  Rev.  i  :  8. 
|1'' 7^  is  said  to  be  a  verbal  form  of   the  verb   rh";^  —  '  to 

ascend ;'  and  is  rendered   in  Psalms  ix  :  3,  and  xxi  :  8,  "  Most 

High."     This  name  signifies  the  exaltation  of  God's  character. 

ni^5!2V — hosts,  is  frequently  used  as  an  epithet  qualifying 

one  of  the  other  names  of  God,  as  pll^^^^j  nlrT'-^Jehovah  of 

T  ;        T     : 
hosts,  (i.  e.,  exercitnnm.)     In  this  title,  all  the  ranks  or  orders  of 
creatures,  animate  and  inanimate,  are  represented  as  subject  to 
God,  as  the  divisions  of  an  army  are  to  their  commander. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  1 47 

We  come  now  to   what  may  be   called   the  communicable 

.    , ,  ,,  names    of   God ;    the    same    words   are   also 

Communicable  Names.  1    ,  r  1  j    •  •  /^     1 

used  to  express  false  and  imagmary  Gods  or 

mighty  men,  as  well  as  the  true  God.  It  is  a  striking  peculiar- 
ity, that  these  alone  are  subjected  to  inflection  by  taking, on  the 
construct  state  and  the  pronominal  suffixes.  They  are  ^^  ex- 
pressing the  idea  of  might,  and  ni'!^^i^_  DTIt*^  singular  and 
plural  forms  of  the  same  root,  probably  derived   from  the  verb 

7*^  —  to  be  strong.  The  singular  form  appears  to  be  used 
chiefly  in  books  of  poetry.  The  plural,  {a  pliiralis  niajestatis) 
is  the  common  term  for  God,  ^soc,  Deus,  expressing  the  simple 
idea  of  His  eternity  as  our  Maker,  the  God  of  creation  and 
providence. 

Gathering  up  these  names  alone,  and  comprehending  their 
conjoined  force  according  to  the  genius  of  Oriental  language, 
we  find  that  they  compose  by  themselves  an  extensive  revela- 
tion of  God's  nature.  They  clearly  show  Him  to  be  self- 
existent,  independent,  immutable  and  eternal ;  infinite  in 
perfections,  exalted  in  majesty,  almighty  in  power,  and  of 
universal  dominion.  We  shall  find  all  of  God  implicitly,  in 
these  traits. 

The  Scriptures  give  to  God  a  number  of  expressive  meta- 
phorical titles  (which  some  very  inaccurately  and  needlessly 
would  classify  as  His  Metaphorical  attributes,  whereas  they 
express,  not  attributes,  but  relations,)  such  as  "  King,"  "  Law- 
giver," "Judge,"  "Rock,"  "Tower,"  "Deliverer,"  "Shepherd," 
"  Husbandman,"  "  Father,"  &c.  These  cannot  be  properly 
■called  His  names. 

God's  attributes  are  those  permanent,  or  essential,  qualities 
of  His  nature,  which  He  has  made  known  to 
iLSShS^Si  "=  i"  His  word.  When  we  say  they  are  essen- 
tial  qualities,  we  do  not  mean  that  they 
compose  His  substance,  as  parts  thereof  making  up  a  whole ; 
still  less,  that  they  are  members,  attached  to  God,  by  which 
He  acts.  They  are  traits  qualifying  His  nature  always,  and 
making  it  the  nature  it  is.  The  question  whether  God's  attri- 
butes are  parts  of  His  essence,  has  divided  not  only  scholastics, 
Socinians  and  orthodox,  but  even  Mohammedans ;  affecting,  as 
it  does,  the  proper  conception  of  His  unity  and  simplicity. 
We  must  repudiate  the  gross  idea  that  they  are  parts  of  His 
substance,  or  members  attached  to  it ;  for  then  He  would  be 
susceptible  of  division,  and  so  of  destruction.  His  substance 
is  a  unit,  a  monad.  God's  omniscience,  e.  g.,  is  not  something 
attached  to  His  substance,  whereby  He  knows ;  but  only  a 
power  or  quality  of  knowing,  qualifying  His  infinite  substance 
itself.  To  avoid  this  gross  error,  the  scholastics,  (including 
many  Protestants,)  used  to  say  that  God's  essence,  and  each  or 


148  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

every  attribute,  are  identical ;  i.  e.,  that  His  whole  essence  is 
identical  with  each  attribute.  They  were  accustomed  to  say, 
that  God's  knowing  is  God,  God's  willing  is  God,  or  that  the 
whole  God  is  in  every  act ;  and  this  they  supposed  to  be  neces- 
sary to  a  proper  conception  of  His  simplicity.  This  predication 
they  carred  so  far  as  to  say,  that  God's  essence  was  simple  in 
such  sense  as  to  exclude,  not  only  all  distinctions  of  parts,  or 
composition,  but  all  logical  distinction  of  substance  or  essence, 
entity  and  quiddity,  and  to  identify  the  essence  and  each  attri- 
bute absolutely  and  in  a  sense  altogether  different  from  finite 
spirits. 

Now,   as  before   remarked,  (Lect.  IV,  Nat.  Theol.)  if  all 

.  this  means  anything  more  than  is  conceded 

jec  ions.  ^^    ^-^^    l^g^    page,    it    is    pantheism.     The 

charge  there  made  is  confirmed  by  this  thought :  That  if  the 
divine  essence  must  be  thus  literally  identified  with  each  attri- 
bute, then  the  attributes  are  also  identified  with  each  other. 
There  is  no  virtual,  but  only  a  nominal  difference,  between 
God's  intellect  and  will.  Hence,  it  must  follow,  that  God 
effectuates  all  He  conceives.  This  not  only  obliterates  the 
vital  distinction  between  His  scieiitia  simplex  and  scientia 
visionis ;  but  it  also  robs  God  of  His  freedom  as  a  personal 
agent,  and,  if  He  is  infinite  by  His  omniscience,  proves  that  the 
creation,  or  His  works,  is  infinite.  Here  we  have  two  of  the 
very  signatures  of  pantheism.  But  further :  this  identification 
of  the  distinct  functions  of  intelligence  and  will  violates  our 
rational  consciousness.  There  is  a  virtual  difference  between 
intellection,  conation,  and  sensibility.  Every  man  knows  this, 
as  to  himself;  and  yet  he  believes  in  the  unity  of  his  spirit. 
It  is  equally,  or  more  highly,  true  of  God,  The  fact  that  He 
is  an  infinite  spiritual  unit,  does  not  militate  against  this  posi- 
tion, but  rather  facilitates  our  holding  of  it ;  inasmuch  as  this 
infinitude  accounts  for  the  manifold  powers  of  function  exer- 
cised, better  than  our  finite  spirituality.  It  will  be  enough  to 
add,  in  conclusion,  that  the  fundamental  law  of  our  reason  for- 
bids our  really  adopting  this  scholastic  refinement.  We  can 
only  know  substance  by  its  attributes.  We  can  only  believe 
an  attribute  to  be,  as  we  are  able  to  refer  it  to  its  substance. 
This  is  the  only  relation  of  thought,  in  which  the  mind  can 
think  either.  Were  the  reduction  of  substance  and  attribute 
actually  made  then,  in  good  faith,  the  result  would  be  incog- 
noscible  to  the  human  intellect. 

God  is  infinite,  and  therefore  incomprehensible,  for  our 
minds,  in  His  essence.  (Job  xi :  7-9.)  Now,  since  our  only 
way  of  knowing  His  essence  is  as  we  know  the  attributes  which 
(in  our  poor,  shortcoming  phrase)  compose  it,  each  of  God's  at- 
tributes and  acts  must  have  an  element  of  the  incomprehensible 
about  it.  (See  Job  xxvi :  14;  Ps.  cxxxix:  5,  6;  Is.  xl :  28; 
Rom.  xi:,33.)     One  of  the  most  important  attainments  for  you 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I49 

to  make,  therefore,  is  for  you  to  rid  your  minds  for  once  and 
all,  of  the  notion,  that  you  either  do  or  can  comprehend  the 
whole  of  what  is  expressed  of  any  of  God's  attributes.  Yet 
there  is  solid  truth  in  our  apprehension  of  them  up  to  our 
limited  measure  —  i.  e,  our  conception  of  them,  if  scriptural, 
will  be  not  essentially  false,  but  only  defective.  Of  this,  we 
have  this  twofold  warrant :  First,  that  God  has  told  us  we  are, 
in  our  own  rational  and  moral  attributes,  formed  in  His  image, 
so  that  His  infinite,  are  the  normae  of  our  finite,  essential  qual- 
ities ;  and  second,  that  God  has  chosen  such  and  such  human 
words  (as  wisdom,  rectitude,  knowledge,)  to  express  these 
divine  attributes.     The  Bible  does  not  use  words  dishonestly. 

Another  question  has  been  raised  by  orthodox  divines,  (e. 
Are  the  Separate  At-  g-,  Breckinridge,)  whether  since  God's  es- 
tributes  of  Infinite  sence  is  infinite,  we  must  not  conceive  of  it 
Number?  ^g    having    an    infinite    number    of  distinct 

attributes.  That  is,  whatever  may  be  the  revelations  of 
Himself  made  by  God  in  word  and  works,  and  however  num- 
erous and  glorious  the  essential  attributes  displayed  therein, 
an  infinite  number  of  other  attributes  still  remain,  not  dreamed 
of  by  His  wisest  creatures.  The  origin  of  this  notion  seems  to 
be  very  clearly  in  Spinozism,  which  sought  to  identify  the  mul- 
tifarious universe  and  God,  by  making  all  the  kinds,  however 
numerous  and  diverse,  modes  of  His  attributes.  Now,  if  the 
question  is  asked,  can  a  finite  mind  prove  that  this  circle  of 
attributes  revealed  in  the  Scriptures  which  seem  to  us  to  pre- 
sent a  God  so  perfect,  so  totiis  teres  et  rotiuidiis,  are  the  only 
distinct  essential  attributes  His  essence  has,  I  shall  freely 
answer,  no.  By  the  very  reason  that  the  essence  is  infinite  and 
incomprehensible,  it  must  follow  that  a  finite  mind  can  never 
know  whether  He  has  exhausted  the  enumeration  of  the  dis- 
tinct qualities  thereof  or  not,  any  more  than  He  can  fully 
comprehend  one  of  them.  But  if  it  be  said  that  the  infinitude 
of  the  essence  necessitates  an  infinite  number  of  distinct  attri- 
butes, I  again  say,  no  ;  for  would  not  one  infinite  attribute 
mark  the  essence  as  infinite  ?  Man  cannot  reason  here.  But 
the  same  attribute  may  exhibit  numberless  varied  acts. 

In  most  sciences,  classification  of  special  objects  of  study. 

is  of  prime  importance,  for  two  reasons.  The 
Classification  of  At-       .jr  t-i  jj-  v 

tributes  Study    01    resemblances    and    diversities,    on 

which  classification  proceeds,  aids  us  in  learn- 
ing the  individuals  classified  more  accurately.  The  objects  are 
so  exceedingly  numerous,  that  unless  general  classes  were 
formed,  of  which  general  propositions  could  be  predicated,  the 
memory  would  be  overwhelmed,  and  the  task  of  science 
endless.  The  latter  reason  has  very  slight  application,  in 
treating  God's  attributes ;  because  their  known  number  is  not 
great.  The  former  reason  applies  very  fairly.  Many  classifica- 
tions have  been  proposed,  of  v/hich  I  will  state  the  chief. 


150  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

(a.)  The  old  orthodox  classification  was  into  communicable 
and  incommunicable.  Thus,  omniscence 
anflnco^rTabt'  was  caUed  a  communicable  attribute; 
because  God  confers  on  angels  and  men,  not 
identically  His  omniscience,  or  a  part  of  it,  but  an  attribute  of 
knowledge  having  a  likenesss,  in  its  lower  degree,  to  His.  His 
eternity  is  called  an  incommunicable  attribute,  because  man  has, 
and  can  have  nothing  like  it,  in  any  finite  measure  even. 
In  some  of  the  attributes,  as  God's  independence  and  self-exis- 
tence, this  distinction  may  be  maintained  ;  but  in  many  others 
to  which  it  is  usually  applied,  it  seems  of  little  accuracy.  For 
instance,  God's  eternity  may  be  stated  as  His  infinite  relation  to 
duration.  Man's  temporal  life  is  his  finite  relation  to  duration, 
and  I  see  not  but  the  analogy  is  about  as  close  between  this  and 
God's  eternity,  as  between  man's  little  knowledge  and  His 
omniscience. 

(b.)  Another  distribution,  proposed  by  others,  is  into  abso- 
lute   and    relative.       God's    immensity,     for 
Absie!^^^'''''   """"^    instance,    is    His    absolute     attribute;     His 
omnipresence,     His     corresponding    relative 
attribute.     The  distinction  happens  to  be  pretty  accurate  in  this 
case,  but  it  would  be  impossible  to  carry  it  through  the  whole, 
(c.)    Another   distrilaution    is  into  natural  and  moral  attri- 
butes ;    the  natural  being  those  which  qualify 
Into     Natural     and     r'     i»     u    •    „  •    sz    -i.  ■   -i.  1  ^    „ 

■^Iq^^I  God  s  benig  as  an  mhnite  spirit  merely — e.  g., 

omniscience,  power,  ubiquity ;  the  moral, 
being  those  which  qualify  Him  as  a  moral  being,  viz.,  righteous- 
ness, truth,  goodness  and  holiness.  This  distinction  is  just  and 
accurate,  but  the  terms  are  bungling.  For  God's  moral  attri- 
butes are  as  truly  natural  (i.  e.,  original,)  as  the  others. 

The  distribution  into  negative  and  positive,  and  the 
Cartesian,  into  internal  (intellect  and  will)  and  external,  need 
not  be  more  than  mentioned.  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  proposed  a 
more  numerous  classification,  into  primary,  viz :  those  belonging 
to  God  as  simply  being:  essential,  viz:  these  qualifying  His 
being  as  pure  spirit ;  natural,  viz  :  those  constituting  Him  a  free 
and  intelligent  spirit ;  moral,  viz :  those  constituting  Him  a 
righteous  being ;  and  consummate,  being  those  perfections 
which  belong  to  Him  as  the  concurrent  result  of  the  preceding. 
The  general  objection  is,  that  it  is  too  artificial  and  complicated. 
It  may  be  remarked,  further,  that  the  distinction  of  primary  and 
essential  attributes  is  unfounded.  Common  sense  would  tell  us 
that  we  cannot  know  God  as  being,  except  as  we  know  Him  as 
spiritual  being ;  and  dialectics  would  say  that  the  consideration  of 
the  essentia  must  precede  that  of  the  esse.  Further,  the  subordi- 
nate distribution  of  attributes  under  the  several  heads  is  confused. 

The    distribution   which    I    would  prefer,  would    conform 

■c    ,    n-^     -c    .■        most  nearly  to  that  mentioned  in  the  third 
Best    ClassuicaUon.        ,  .         -^  ,         ,  1       t-i      itf     i. 

place,  into  moral  and  non-moral,      ihe  West- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I5I 

minster  Assembly,  in  this  case  as  in  many  others,  has  given  us 
the  justest  and  most  scientific  view  of  this  arrangement,  in  its 
Catechism  :  "  God  is  a  spirit,  infinite,  eternal  and  unchangeable, 
in  His  being,  wisdom,  power,  holiness,  justness,  goodness  and 
truth,"  This  recognizes  a  real  ground  of  distinction,  after 
which  the  other  tentative  arrangements  I  have  described,  are 
evidently  groping,  with  a  dim  and  partial  apprehension.  There 
is  one  class  of  attributes,  (wisdom,  power,  purity,  justice,  good- 
ness and  truth,)  specifically  and  immediately  qualifying  God's 
being.  There  is  another  class,  (infinitude,  eternity,  immutabili- 
ty,) which  collectively  qualify  all  His  other  attributes  and 
His  being,  and  which  may,  therefore,  be  properly  called  His 
consummate  attributes.  God  is,  then,  infinite,  eternal  and  im- 
mutable in  all  His  perfections.  In  a  sense,  somewhat  similar,  all 
His  moral  attributes  may  be  said  to  be  qualified  by  the  consum- 
mate moral  attribute,  holiness — the  crowning  glory  of  the  divine 
character. 

3.     What    we    conceive    to   be    the    best    rational    proofs 
Unit  of  God  °^  God's  unity  and  simplicity,  were  presented 

in  a  previous  lecture  on  Natural  Theology ; 
we  gave  the  preference  to  that  from  the  convergent  harmony  of 
creation.  Theologians  are  also  accustomed  to  argue  it  from 
the  necessity  of  His  excellence  (inconclusively,)  from  His  infin- 
itude (more  solidly.)  But  our  best  proof  is  the  Word,  which 
asserts  His  exclusive,  as  well  as  His  numerical  unity.  Deut.  vi: 
4;  1st.  Kings  viii :  60;  Is.  xliv :  6;  Markxii:  29-32;  ist.  Cor. 
viii :  4;  Eph.  iv  :  6 ;  Gal.  iii ;  20;  1st.  Tim.  ii :  S  5  Deut.  xxxii: 
39;  Is.  xliii :    lO-ii;   xxxvii :  16,  &c. 

The  spirituality  of  God  we  argued  rationally,  first,  from  the 

TT   .      r,  .  .,  fact  that   He  is  an  intelligent  and  voluntary 

He  IS  a  Spirit.  _  1  i- 

nrst  cause  ;  tor  our  understandmgs  are,  prop- 
erly speaking,  unable  to  attribute  these  qualities  to  any  other 
than  spiritual  substance.  We  found  the  same  conclusion 
flowed  necessarily  from  the  fact,  that  God  is  the  ultimate  source 
of  all  force.  It  is  implied  in  His  immensity  and  omnipresence. 
He  is  Spirit,  because  the  fountain  of  life.  This  also  is  confirmed 
by  Scriptures  emphatically.  (See  Deut.  iv :  15-18;  Ps.  cxxxix: 
7  ;  Is.  xxxi :  3  ;  John  iv  :  24;  2d.  Cor.  iii :  17.)  This  evidence  is 
greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  not  only  is  the  Father,  but 
the  divine  nature  in  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  also  are  called 
again  and  again  Spirit.  (See,  for  the  former,  Rom.  i :  4  ;  Heb. 
ix  :  14.  For  the  latter,  the  title  Holy  Ghost,  fhtbaa,  everywhere 
in  New  Testament,  and  even  in  Old.)  We  may  add,  also,  all 
those  passages  which  declare  God,  although  always  most  inti- 
timately  present,  to  be  beyoud  the  cognizance  of  all  our  senses. 
(Col.  i:  15  ;    1st.  Tim.  i:  17  ;  Heb.  xi :  27.) 

The  simplicity  of  God,  theologically  defined,  is  not  express- 

Tj.    c-     T  •*,  ly  asserted  in  the  Bible.      But  it  follows  as  a 

rlis  bimplicity.  •'  .  .... 

necessary    mterence,    from    His    spintuahtw 


152  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Our  consciousness  compels  us  to  conceive  of  our  own  spirits  as 
absolutely  simple  ;  because  the  consciousness  is  always  such, 
and  the  whole  conscious  subject,  ego,  is  in  each  conscious  state 
indivisibly.  The  very  idea  of  dividing  a  thought,  an  emotion, 
a  volition,  a  sensation,  mechanically  into  parts,  is  wholly 
irrelevant  to  our  conception  of  them  ;  it  is  impossible.  Hence, 
as  God  tells  us  that  our  spirits  were  formed  in  the  image  of  His, 
and  as  He  has  employed  this  word,  nuti)ij.a,  to  express  the 
nature  of  His  substance,  we  feel  authorized  to  conceive  of  it  as 
also  simple.  But  there  are  still  stronger  reasons  ;  for  (a,)  Other- 
wise God's  absolute  unity  would  be  lost,  (b.)  He  would  not  be 
incapable  of  change,  (c.)  He  might  be  disintegrated,  and  so, 
destroyed. 

We  are  well  aware  that  many  representations  occur  in 
Scripture  which  seem  to  speak  of  God  as  having  a  material 
form,  (e.  g.,  inthe  theophanies)  and  parts,  as  hands,  face,  &c., 
&c.  The  latter  are  obviously  only  representations  adapted  to 
our  faculties,  to  set  before  us  the  different  modes  of  God's 
workings.  The  seeming  forms,  angelic  or  human,  in  which  He 
appeared  to  the  patriarchs,  were  but  the  symbols  of  His 
presence. 

4.  The  distinction  between     God's  immensity  and   omni- 

T  -^       ,  ^        presence  has   already  been  stated.     Both  are 

Immensity  and  Om-  .     j     •       o      •    ,  -r-i        ^ 

nipresence.  asserted    m  bcnptures.     The  former  m   1st. 

Kings  viii  :   27,  and  parallel   in    Chron.  ;   Is. 

Ixvi:   I.     The  latter  in  Ps.  cxxxix :  7-10;  Acts  xvii :    27-28; 

Jer.  xxiii :  24 ;  Heb.  1:3.     It  follows,  also,  from  what  is  asserted 

of  God's  works    of    creation  and    providence,     and     of    His 

infinite  knowledge.     (See  Theol.  Lect.  4th.) 

5.  God's  eternity  has  already  been  defined,  as  an  existence 
Eternity.  absolutely    without   beginning,   without   end, 

and  without  succession;  and  the  rational 
evidences  thereof  have  been  presented.  As  to  the  question, 
whether  God's  thoughts  and  purposes  are  absolutely  uncon- 
nected with  all  successive  duration,  we  saw,  when  treating  this 
question  in  Natural  Theology,  good  reason  to  doubt.  The 
grounds  of  doubt  need  not  be  repeated.  But  there  is  a  more 
popular  sense,  in  which  the  pimctiim  stans,  may  be  predicated 
of  the  divine  existence,  that  past  and  future  are  as  distinctly  and 
immutably  present  with  the  Divine  Mind,  as  the  present.  This 
is  probably  indicated  by  the  striking  phrase.  Is.  Ivii :  15  and 
more  certainly,  by  Exod.  iii :  14,  compared  with  John  viii :  58  ;  by 
Ps.  xc :  4,  and  2d  Peter,  iii :  8.  That  God's  being  has  neither 
beginning  nor  end  is  stated  in  repeated  places — as  Gen.  xxi :  33  ; 
Ps.  xc  :  I,  2  ;  cii :  26-28  ;  Is.  xli :  4  ;  ist.  Tim.  i :  17  ;  Heb  .i :  12 : 
Rev.  i :  8. 

That  God  is  immutable  in  His  essence,  thoughts,  volitions, 
6.  Immutability.       ^"^^  ft  His  perfections,  has  been  already  ar- 
gued from  His  perfection  itself,  from  His  in- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  1 53 

•dependence  and  sovereignty,  from  His  simplicity  and  from  His 
blessedness.  This  unchangeableness  not  only  means  that  He 
is  devoid  of  all  change,  decay,  or  increase  of  substance  :  but 
that  His  knowledge.  His  thoughts  and  plans,  and  His  moral 
principles  and  volitions  remain  forever  the  same.  This  immu- 
tability of  His  knowledge  and  thoughts  flows  from  their  infinitude. 
For,  being  complete  from  eternity,  there  is  nothing  new  to  be 
added  to  His  knowledge.  His  nature  remaining  the  same,  and 
the  objects  present  to  His  mind  remaining  forever  unchanged,  it 
is  clear  that  His  active  principles  and  purposes  must  remain  for- 
ever in  the  same  state  ;  because  there  is  nothing  new  to  Him  to 
awaken  or  provoke  new  feelings  or  purposes. 

Our  Confession  says,  that  God  hath  neither  parts  nor  pas- 
sions. That  He  has  something  analagous  to  what  are  called  in 
man  active  principles,  is  manifest,  for  He  wills  and  acts ;  there- 
fore He  must  feel.  But  these  active  principles  must  not  be  con- 
ceived of  as  emotions,  in  the  sense  of  ebbing  and  flowing  ac- 
cesses of  feeling.  In  other  words,  they  lack  that  agitation  and 
rush,  that  change  from  cold  to  hot,  and  hot  to  cold,  which  con- 
stitute the  characteristics  of  passion  in  us.  They  are,  in  God, 
an  ineffable,  fixed,  peaceful,  unchangeable  calm,  although  the 
springs  of  volition.  That  such  principles  may  be,  although  in- 
comprehensible to  us,  we  may  learn  from  this  fact :  That  in  the 
wisest  and  most  sanctified  creatures,  the  active  principles  have 
least  of  passion  and  agitation,  and  yet  they  by  no  means  become 
inefficacious  as  springs  of  action — e.  g.,  moral  indignation  in  the 
holy  and  wise  parent  or  ruler.  That  the  above  conception  of 
the  calm  immutability  of  God's  active  principles  is  necessary, 
appears  from  the  following :  The  agitations  of  literal  passions 
are  incompatible  with  His  blessedness.  The  objects  of  those 
feelings  are  as  fully  present  to  the  Divine  Mind  at  one  time  as 
another;  so  that  there  is  nothing  to  cause  ebb  or  flow.  And 
that  ebb  would  constitute  a  change  in  Him.  When,  therefore, 
the  Scriptures  speak  of  God  as  becoming  wroth,  as  repenting, 
as  indulging  His  fury  against  His  adversaries,  in  connection  with 
some  particular  event  occurring  in  time,  we  must  understand 
them  anthropopathically.  What  is  meant  is,  that  the  outward 
manifestations  •  of  His  active  principles  were  as  though  these 
feelings  then  arose. 

God's  immutability,  as  thus  defined,  is  abundantly  asserted 
in  Scriptures.  (Numb,  xxiii :  19;  Ps.  cii:  26;  xxxiii :  ii;  ex: 
4;   Is.  xlvi:    10;   Mai.  iii  :  6;  Jas.  i  :    17;   Heb.  vi :   17;  xiii  :  8.) 

This  attribute  has  been   supposed  to  be  inconsistent  with 

the  incarnation    of  the   Godhead   in  Christ; 
Objections  Answered.  ^^.^^  q^^,^  ^^^^^^  ^^^^^  -^  ^-^^^^  ^^^  especially 

His  creation  ;  and  with  His  reconciliation  with  sinners  upon 
their  repentance.  To  the  first,  it  is  enough  to  reply,  that  neither 
was  God's  substance  changed  by  the  incarnation  ;  for  there  was 
no  confusion   of  natures  in  the   person  of  Christ,  nor  was  His 


154  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

plan  modified  ;  for  He  always  intended  and  foresaw  it.  To  the 
second,  the  purpose  to  create  precisely  all  that  is  created,  was 
from  eternity  to  God,  and  to  do  it  just  at  the  time  He  did.  Had 
He  not  executed  that  purpose  when  the  set  time  arrived,  there 
would  have  been  the  change.  To  the  third,  I  reply,  the  change 
IS  not  in  God  :  but  in  the  sinner.  For  God  to  change  His  treat- 
ment as  the  sinner's  character  changes,  this  is  precisely  what  His 
immutability  dictates. 


LECTURE  XIV. 

DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  the  Scriptural  account  of  God's  knowledge  and  wisdom?  What  the 
meaning  of  His  simple,  His  free,  His  mediate  knowledge  ?  Does  God's  free  knowl- 
edge extend  to  the  future  acts  of  free-agents  ? 

Review  of  Breckinridge's  Theology  by  the  author.  Turrettin,  Loc.  iii.  Qu. 
12,  13.  Dick,  Lect.  21,  22.  Watson's  Theo.  Inst.,  pt.  ii,  ch.  4  and  ch.  28,  ^  3. 
Dr.  Chr.  Knapp,  ^  xxii. 

2.  Do  the  Scriptures  teacli  God  to  be  a  voluntary  being?  What  limitation,  if 
any,  on  His  will  ?  Prove  that  He  is  omnipotent.  Does  God  govern  free-agents  om- 
nipotently ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  14,  21,  22.  Dick,  Lect.  23.  Watson,  Theo.  Inst.  pt. 
ii,  ch.  28,  §  3,  4.     Knapp,  §  xxi. 

3.  What  is  the  distinction  between  God's  decretive  an^  preceptive  will  ?  Is  it 
just?  Between  His  antecedent  and  consequent  will ?  Are  His  volitions  ever  condi- 
tioned on  anything  out  of  Himself? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  15,  16,  17.     Knapp,  §  xxv  and  xxvi. 

4.  Is  God's  will  the  sole  source  of  moral  distinctions? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  18. 

'  I  ^HE  difference   between  knowledge  and  wisdom   has  been 

already  defined  as  this  :  knowledge  is  the  simple  cognition 

of  things  ;  wisdom  is  the  selecting  and  subor- 

I   God's  Knowledge  ^inating  of  them  to   an  end,  as  means.     Not 

anci  w  istiom.  o  r        1        • 

only  must  there  be  the  power  of  selectmgand 
subordinating  means  to  an  end,  to  constitute  wisdom  :  but  to  a 
worthy  end.  Wisdom,  therefore,  is  a  higher  attribute  than 
knowledge,  involving  especially  the  moral  perfections.  For 
when  one  proceeds  to  the  selection  of  an  end,  there  is  choice  ; 
and  the  moral  element  is  introduced.  Wisdom  and  knowledge 
are  the  attributes  which  characterize  God  as  pure  mind,  as  a 
being  of  infinite  and  essential  intelligence.  That  God's  knowl- 
edge is  vast,  we  argued  from  His  spirituality,  from  His  creation 
of  other  minds  ;  (Ps.  xciv :  7-10,)  from  His  work  of  creation  in 
genera],  from  His  omnipresence  ;  (Ps.  cxxxix :  1-12,)  and  from 
His  other  perfections  of  power,  and  (especially)  of  goodness, 
truth  and  righteousness,  to  the  exercise  of  which  knowledge  is 
constantly  essential.  Of  His  wisdom,  the  great  natural  proof  is 
the   wonderful,    manifold   and   beneficent   contrivances  in  His 


OF    LECTURES    IN'  THEOLOGY.  I  55 

works  of  creation  (Ps.  cxiv :  24,)  and  providence.  That  God's 
knowledge  is  distinct,  and  in  every  case  intuitive,  never  deduc- 
tive, seems  to  flow  from  its  perfection.  We  only  know  sub- 
stances by  their  attributes ;  God  must  know  them  in  their  true 
substance :  because  it  was  His  creative  wisdom  which  clothed 
each  substance  with  its  essential  qualities.  We  only  learn  many 
things  by  inference  from  other  things ;  God  knows  all  things  in- 
tuitively ;  because  there  can  be  no  succession  in  His  knowledge, 
admitting  of  the  relation  of  premise  and  conclusion. 

We  may  show  the  infinite  extent  of  God's  knowledge,  by 
viewing  it  under  several   distributions.       He 
mniscience.  perfectly  knows  Himself.    (iCor.  ii:   ii.)    He 

has  all  the  past  perfectly  before  His  mind,  so  that  there  is  no 
room  for  any  work  of  recollection.  (Is.  xli ;  22;  xliii :  9.)  This 
is  also  shown  by  the  doctrine  of  a  universal  judgment.  (Eccl. 
xii :  14;  Luke  viii :  17;  Rom.  ii :  16;  iii :  6;  xiv  :  10 ;  Matt, 
xii :   36;  Ps.   Ivi :  8;  Mai.    iii:    16;   Rev.   xx :    12;  Jer.  xvii :    i,) 

All  the  acts  and  thoughts  of  all  His  creatures,  which  occur 
in  the  present,  are  known  to  Him  as  they  occur.  (Gen.  xvi  : 
13;  Prov.  XV  :  3  ;  Ps.  cxlvii :  4  and  5  ;  xxxiv :  15  ;  Zech.  iv: 
10;  Prov.'v:  21;  Job  xxxiv:  22;  Luke  xii:  6;  Heb.  iv:  13.) 
Especially  do  the  Scriptures  claim  for  God  a  full  and  perfect 
knowledge  of  man's  thoughts,  feelings  and  purposes — however 
concealed  in  the  soul.  (Job  xxxiv:  21;  Ps.  cxxxiv  :  4;  Jer. 
xvii:    10;   Jno.  ii :   25;   Ps.  xliv :   21,  &c.) 

God  also  knows,  and  has  always  known,  all  that  shall  ever 
occur  in  the  future.  (See  Is.  xiii :  9  ;  Acts  xv  :  18.)  Of  this,  all 
God's  predictions  likewise  afford  clear  evidence.  The  particu- 
larity of  God's  foreknowledge  even  of  the  most  minute  things,, 
maybe  seen,  well  defended.     Turrettin,  Loc.  3,  Qu.  12,  §  4-6. 

Or,  adopting  another  distribution,  we  may  assert  that  God 
knows  all  the  possible  and  all  the  actual.  It 
WhatT^  ^'"'P^"''-  is  His  knowledge  of  the  former,  which  is 
called  by  the  scholastics  scientia  simplicis  in- 
telligentics.  Its  objecfis  not  that  which  God  has  determined  to 
effectuate,  (the  knowledge  of  which  is  called  "  free"  or  scientia 
visionis ;)  but  that  which  His  infinite  intelligence  sees  might  be 
effectuated,  if  He  saw  fit  to  will  it.  (The  scholastics  call  it  His 
knowledge  of  that  which  has  essentia,  but  not  esse.)  That  God 
has  an  infinite  knowledge  of  possibles,  other  than  those  He  pur- 
poses to  actualize,  no  one  can  doubt,  who  considers  the  fecun- 
dity of  this  intelligence,  a'^  exhibited  in  His  actual  works.  Can 
it  be,  that  those  works  have  exhausted  all  God's  conceptions  ? 
Further :  God's  wise  selection  of  means  and  ends,  implies  that 
conceptions  existed  in  the  divine  mind,  other  than  those  He  has 
embodied  in  creation  or  act,  from  among  which  He  chose. 

The  Formalist  Divines  of  the  school  of  Wolff,  (as  repre- 
sented by  Stapfer,  Bulfinger,  &c.,)  make  much 
TheodiceaAence.        ^^  ^^^^  distinction   between  God's  knowledge 


156  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  the  possible  and  the  actual,  to  build  a  defence  of  God's  holi- 
ness and  benevolence,  in  the  permission  of  evil.  Say  they  ; 
Scientia  simplicis  iiitelligentics,  is  not  free  in  God.  He  is  impel- 
led by  a  metaphysical  necessity,  to  conceive  of  the  possible 
according  to  truth.  It  is  God's  conception  which  generates  its 
essentia  ;  but  about  this,  God  exercises  no  voluntary,  and  there- 
fore, no  moral  act  of  His  nature.  God's  will  is  only  concerned 
in  bringing  the  thing  out  of  posse  into  esse.  But  the  esse 
changes  nothing  in  the  essentia  ;  determines  nothing  about  the 
quality  of  the  thing  actualized.  Therefore  God's  will  is  not 
morally  responsible  for  any  evil  it  produces.  This  pretended 
argument  scarcely  needs  exposure.  It  is  Realistic  in  its  whole 
structure.  The  plain  answer  is,  that  the  thing  or  event  only  in 
posse,  is  non-existent  with  all  its  evils.  God's  will  is  certainly 
concerned  in  bringing  it  out  of  posse  and  esse.  And  unless  God 
is  bound  by  fate.  His  will  therein  is  free.  It  is,  however,  perfect- 
ly correct,  to  say  that  the  object  of  God's  free  knowledge  owes 
its  futurition  primarily  to  His  will.  Had  He  not  purposed  its 
production,  it  would  never  have  been  produced ;  for  He  is  sove- 
reign first  cause.     Now,  if  He  willed  it,  of  course  He  foreknew  it. 

This  leads  us  to  the  oft  mooted  question :  whether  acts  con- 
God  knows  all  acts  tingent,  and  especially  those  of  rational  free- 
of  free  agents  with  a  agents,  are  objects  of  God's  scientia  visionis, 
scientia  visionis.  qj.  q^  ^  scientia  media.     This  is  said  to  have 

been  first  invented  by  the  Jesuit  Molina,  in  order  to  sustain 
their  semi-Pelagian  doctrine  of  a  self-determining  will,  and  of 
conditional  election.  By  mediate  foreknowledge,  they  mean  a 
kind  intermediate  between  God's  knowledge  of  the  possible 
(for  these  acts  are  possessed  of  futurition),  and  the  scientia 
visionis :  for  they  suppose  the  futurition  and  foreknowledge  of 
it  is  not  the  result  of  God's  will,  but  of  the  contingent  second 
-cause.  It  is  called  mediate  again :  because  they  suppose  God 
arrives  at  it,  not  directly  by  knowing  His  own  purpose  to  effect 
it,  but  indirectly ;  by  His  infinite  insight  into  the  manner  in 
which  the  contingent  second  cause  will  act,  under  given  out- 
ward circumstances,  forseen  or  produced  by  God.  The  existence 
of  such  a  species  of  knowledge  the  Calvinists  deny  in  toto.  To 
clear  the  way  for  this  discussion,  I  remark  : 

First.  That  God  has  a  perfect  and  universal  foreknowledge 
of  all  the  volitions  of  free-agents.  The  Scriptures  expressly 
assert  it.  (Ezek.  xi:  5  ;  Is.  xlviii :  8;  Ps.  cxxxix :  3,  4 ;  i  Sam. 
xxiii :  12;  Jno.  xxi :  18;  I  Jno.  iii :  20;  Acts  xv :  18.)  It  is 
equally  implied  in  God's  attribute  of  heart-searching  knowl- 
edge, which  He  claims  for  Himself.  (Rev.  ii :  21,  et  passim?) 
It  is  altogether  necessary  to  God's  knowledge  and  control  of 
all  the  future  into  which  any  creature's  volition  enters  as  a  part 
of  the  immediate  or  remote  causation.  And  this  department 
of  the  future  is  so  vast,  so  important  in  God's  government,  that 
if  He  could  not  foreknow  and  control  it,  He  would  be  one  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 5/ 

the  most  baffled,  confused,  and  harassed  of  all  beings;  and 
His  government  one  of  perpetual  uncertainties,  failures,  and 
partial  expedients.  Last :  God's  predictions  of  such  free  acts 
of  His  creatures,  and  His  including  them  in  His  decrees,  in  so 
many  cases,  show  beyond  dispute  that  He  has  some  certain 
way  to  foreknow  them.  See  every  prophecy  in  Scripture  where 
human  or  angelic  acts  enter.  Where  the  prediction  is  positive, 
and  proves  true,  the  foreknowledge  must  have  been  certain. 
For  these  reasons,  the  impiety  of  early  Socinians  in  denying. 
God  even  a  universal  scientia  media,  is  to  be  utterly  repudiated. 
In  discussing  the  question  whether  God's  foreknowledge 

of  future  acts   of  free-agents   is   mediate   in 
Its^rJr?'"''^  ^'^'^-    the  sense  defined,  I  would  beg  you  to  note,. 

that  the  theological  virus  of  the  proposition, 
is  in  this  point :  That  in  such  cases,  the  foreknowledge  of  the 
act  precedes  the  purpose  of  God  as  to  it.  i.  e..  They  say  God 
purposes,  because  He  forsees  it,  instead  of  saying  with  us,  that 
He  only  forsees  because  He  purposes  to  permit  it.  Against  this 
point  of  the  doctrine,  Turrettin's  argument  is  just  and  conclusive. 
Of  this  the  sum,  abating  His  unnecessary  distinctions,  is :  (a.)- 
These  acts  are  either  possible,  or  future,  so  that  it  is  impossible 
to  withdraw  them  from  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  classes  of 
God's  knowledge.  His  simple,  or  His  actual,  (b.)  God  cannot 
certainly  foreknow  an  act,  unless  its  futurition  is  certain.  If 
His  foreknowing  it  made  it  certain,  then  His  knowledge 
involves  foreordination.  If  the  connection  with  the  second 
cause  producing  it  made  it  certain,  then  it  does  not  belong  at 
all  to  the  class  of  contingent  events  !  And  the  causative  con- 
nection being  certain,  when  God  foreordained  the  existence  of 
the  second  cause,  He  equally  ordained  that  of  the  effect.  But 
there  are  but  the  two  sources,  from  which  the  certainty  of  its- 
futurition  could  have  come,  (c.)  The  doctrine  would  make 
God's  knowledge  and  power  dependent  on  contingent  acts  of 
His  creatures;  thus  violating  God's  perfections  and  sovereignty, 
(d.)  God's  election  of  men  would  have  to  be  in  every  case 
conditioned  on  His  foresight  of  their  conduct,  (what  semi- 
Pelagians  are  seeking  here.)  But  in  one  case  at  least,  it  is 
unconditioned  ;  that  of  His  election  of  sinners  to  redemption. 
(Rom.  ix :  i6,  &c.) 

But   in  a   metaphysical  point  of  view,  I   cannot  but  think 

that   Turrettin    has    made   unnecessary    and 

To  God  nothing  is    grroncous   concessions.     The   future  acts  of 
contingent. 

free  agents  fall  under  the  class  of  contmgent 

effects :    i.  e.,   as  Turrettin   concedes   the   definition,  of  effects 

such  that  the  cause  being  in  existence,  the  effect  may,  or  may 

not  follow.*     (He  adopts  this,  to  sustain  his  scholastic  doctrine 

of   immediate   physical  conciirsiis:     of   which   more,  when    we 

*  For  instance :  the  dice  box  being  shaken  and  inverted,  the  dice  may,  or  may 
not  fall  with  their  first  faces  uppermost 


158  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

treat  the  doctrine  of  Providence.)  But  let  me  ask :  Has  this 
distinction  of  contingent  effects  any  place  at  all,  in  God's 
mind  ?  Is  it  not  a  distinction  relevant  only  to  our  ignorance  ? 
An  effect  is,  in  some  cases,  to  us  contingent;  because  our  par- 
tial blindness  prevents  our  foreseeing  precisely  what  are  the 
present  concurring  causes,  promoting,  or  preventing,  or  whether 
the  things  supposed  to  be,  are  real  causes,  under  the  given  cir- 
cumstances. I  assert  that  wherever  the  causative  tie  exists  at 
all,  its  connections  with  its  effect  is  certain,  (metaphysically 
necessary.)  If  not,  it  is  no  true  cause  at  all.  There  is,  there- 
Fore,  to  God,  no  such  thing,  in  strictness  of  speech,  as  a 
contingent  effect.  The  contingency,  (in  popular  phrase,  uncer- 
tainty,) pertains  not  to  the  question  whether  the  adequate  cause 
will  act  certainly,  if  present ;  but  whether  it  is  certainly  present. 
To  God,  therefore,  whose  knowledge  is  perfect,  there  is  literally 
no  such  thing  as  a  contingent  effect.  And  this  is  true  concern- 
ing the  acts  of  free-agents,  emphatically ;  they  are  effects. 
Their  second  cause  is  the  agent's  own  desires  as  acting  upon 
the  objective  inducements  presented  by  Providence ;  the  caus- 
ative connection  is  certain,  in  many  cases,  to  our  view;  in  all 
cases  to  God's.  Is  not  this  the  very  doctrine  of  Turrettin 
himself,  concerning  the  will?  The  acts  of  free  agents,  then, 
arise  through  second  causes. 

The  true  statement  of  the  matter,  then,  should  be  this: 
The  objects  of  God's  scientia  visionis,  or  free 
thiIkno^v^Sg^°''  "^  knowledge,  fall  into  two  great  classes:  (a.) 
Those  which  God  effectuates /rr  se,  without 
any  second  cause,  (b.)  Those  which  He  effectuates  through 
their  natural  second  causes.  Of  the  latter,  many' are  physical 
—  e,  g.,  the  rearing  of  vegetables  through  seeds;  and  to  the 
latter  belong  all  natural  volitions  of  free  agents,  caused  by  the 
subjective  dispositions  of  their  nature,  acting  on  the  objective 
circumstances  of  their  providential  position.  Now  iaall  effects 
which  God  produces  through  second  causes,  His  foreknowl- 
edge, involving  as  it  does,  a  fore-ordination,  is  in  a  certain 
sense  relative.  That  is,  it  embraces  those  second  causes,  as 
means,  as  well  as  the  effects  ordained  through  them.  (And 
thus  it  is  that  "  the  liberty  or  contingency  of  second  causes  is 
not  taken  away,  but  rather  established.")  Further,  the  fore- 
knowledge which  purposes  to  produce  a  certain  effect  by  means 
of  a  given  second  cause,  must,  of  course,  include  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  the  nature  and  power  of  the  cause.  That  that 
cause  derived  that  nature  from  another  part  or  act  of  God's 
purpose,  surely  is  no  obstacle  to  this.  Here,  then,  is  a  proper 
sense,  in  which  it  may  be  said  that  God's  foresight  of  a  given 
effect  is  relative  —  i.  e.,  through  His  knowledge  of  the  nature 
and  power  and  presence  of  its  natural,  or  second  cause.  May 
not  relative  knowledge  be  intuitive  and  positive  ?  Several  of 
our  axioms  are  truths  of  relation.     Yet,  it  by  no  means  fol- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 59 

lows,  therefore,  as  the  semi-Pelagian  would  wish,  that  such  a 
foreknowledge  is  antecedent  to  God's  preordination  concerning 
it.  Because  God,  in  foreordaining  the  presence  and  action  of 
the  natural  cause,  according  to  His  knowledge  of  its  nature, 
does  also  efficaciously  foreordain  the  effect. 

When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  God's  foreknowledge  of  the 

volitions    of    free-agents    is    relative    in    this 

God's  Relative  Knowl-  ^^^^^ .  ^  g    through  His  infinite  insight  into 

the  way  their  dispositions  will  naturally  act 
under  given  circumstances,  placed  around  them  by  His  inten- 
tional providence,  theCalvinist  should  by  no  means  flout  it;  but 
accept,  under  proper  limitations.  But  the  term  mediate  is  not 
accurate,  to  express  this  orthodox  sense;  because  it  seems  to 
imply  derivation  subsequent,  in  the  part  of  God's  cognition 
said  to  be  mediated,  from  the  independent  will  of  the  creature. 
The  Calvinist  is  the  very  man  to  accept  this  view  of  a  relative 
foreknowledge  with  consistency.  For,  on  the  theory  of  the 
semi-Pelagian,  such  a  foreknowledge  by  insight  is  impossible ; 
volitions  being  uncaused,  according  to  them ;  but  on  our  theory, 
it  is  perfectly  reasonable,  volitions,  according  to  us,  being  cer- 
tain, or  necessary  effects  of  dispositions.  And  I  repeat,  we 
need  not  feel  any  hyper-orthodox  fear  that  this  view  will 
infringe  the  perfection  of  God's  knowledge,  or  sovereignty,  in 
His  foresight  of  the  free  acts  of  His  creatures ;  it  is  the  very 
way  to  establish  them,  and  yet  leave  the  creature  responsible. 
For  if  God  is  able  to  foresee  that  the  causative  connection, 
between  the  second  cause  and  its  effect,  is  certain ;  then,  in 
decreeing  the  presence  of  the  cause  and  the  proper  external 
conditions  of  its  action.  He  also  decrees  the  occurrence  of  the 
effect.  And,  that  volitions  are  not  contingent,  but  certain 
effects,  is  the  very  thing  the  Calvinist  must  contend  for,  if  he 
would  be  consistent.  The  history  of  this  controversy  on  scientia 
media  presents  another  instance  of  the  rule ;  that  usually  mis- 
chievous errors  have  in  them  a  certain  modicum  of  valuable 
truth.  Without  this,  they  would  not  have  strength  in  them  to 
run,  and  do  mischief. 

We  should  apprehend   no  real   distinction  between  God's 
2.  God's  will  and    ^'^^^  ^^^  His  power;  because  in  our  spirits, to 
power  omnipotent  over    will   is    identical    with    the    putting    forth    of 
free  agents  also.  power;  and  because   Scripture  represents  all 

God's  working  as  being  done  by  a  simple  volition.  Ps.  xxxiii : 
9  ;  Gen.  i :  3.  That  God  is  a  free  and  voluntary  being,  we  in- 
ferred plainly  from  the  selection  of  contrivances  to  produce  His 
ends,  and  of  ends  to  be  produced  ;  for  these  selections  are  acts 
of  choice.  He  is  Universal  Cause,  and  Spirit.  What  is  volition 
but  a  spirit's  causation  ?  Of  His  vast  power,  the  works  of  cre- 
ation and  providence  are  sufficient,  standing  proofs.  And  the 
successive  displays  brought  to  our  knowledge  have  been  so  nu- 
merous and  vast,  that  there  seems  to  reason  herself  every  prob- 


l6o    •  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ability  His  power  is  infinite.  There  must  be  an  inexhaustible 
reserve,  where  so  much  is  continually  put  forth.  Finally,  were 
He  not  omnipotent,  He  would  not  be  very  God.  The  being,  who- 
ever it  is,  which  defies  His  power  would  be  His  rival.  The  Scrip- 
tures also  repeatedly  assert  His  omnipotence.  See  Gen.  xvii  : 
i;  Rev.  i:  8;  Jer.  xxvii :  17;  Matt,  xix :  26;  Luke  i:  37; 
Rev.  xix:  6;  Matt,  vi :  13.  They  say  with  equal  emphasis, 
that  God  exercises  full  sovereignty  over  free  agents,  securing 
the  performance  by  them,  and  upon  them,  of  all  that  He  pleases, 
yet  consistently  with  their  freedom  and  responsibility.  Dan.  iv  : 
35;  Prov.  xxi:  i;  Ps.  Ixxvi :  10;  Phil,  ii:  13;  Rom.  ix  :  19; 
Eph.  I  ;  II,  &c.  The  same  truth  is  evinced  by  every  prediction 
in  which  God  has  positively  foretold  what  free  agents  should  do ; 
for  had  He  not  some  way  of  securing  the  result,  He  would  not 
have  predicted  it  positively.  Here  may  be  cited  the  histories  of 
Pharaoh.  Exod.  iv :  21;  vi :  i:  of  Joseph,  Gen.  xiv :  5;  of 
the  Assyrian  king.  Is.  x:  5-7;  of  Cyrus,  Is.  xiv:  i  ;  of  Judas, 
Acts  ii :  23,  &c.,  &c.  It  is  objected  by  those  of  Pelagian  ten- 
dencies, that  some  such  instances  of  control  do  not  prove  that 
God  has  universal  sovereignty  over  all  free  agents  ;  for  they 
may  be  lucky  instances,  in  which  God  managed  to  cause  them 
to  carry  out  His  will  by  some  expedient.  To  say  nothing  of 
the  texts  quoted  above,  it  may  be  answered,  that  these  cases, 
with  others  that  might  be  quoted,  are  too  numerous,  too  remote, 
and  too  strong,  to  be  thus  accounted  for.  Further,  if  God  could 
control  one,  He  can  another ;  there  being  no  different  powers 
to  overcome  ;  and  there  will  hardly  be  a  prouder  or  more  stub- 
born case  than  that  of  Pharaoh  or  Nebuchadnezzar.  A  parallel 
answer  may  be  made  to  the  evasion  from  the  argument  for  God's 
foreknowledge  of  man's  volitions,  from  His  predictions  of  them. 
Once  more :  if  God  is  not  sovereign  over  free  agents.  He  is  of 
course  not  sovereign  over  any  events  dependent  on  the  volitions 
of  free  agents,  either  simultaneous  or  previous.  But  those  events 
make  up  a  vast  multitude,  and  include  all  the  affairs  of  God's 
Government  which  most  interest  us  and  concern  Plis  providence. 
If  He  has  not  this  power.  He  is?  indeed,  a  poor  dependence  for 
the  Christian,  and  prayer  for  His  protection  is  little  worth.  The 
familiar  objection  will,  of  course,  be  suggested,  that  if  God  gov- 
erns men  sovereignly,  then  they  are  not  free  agents.  The  dis- 
cussion of  it  will  be  postponed  till  we  treat  of  Providence. 
Enough  meantime,  to  say,  that  we  have  indubitable  evidence  of 
both  ;  of  the  one  from  consciousness,  of  the  other  from  Scrip- 
ture and  reason.  Yet,  that  these  agents  were  responsible  and 
guilty,  see  Is.  x:  12;  Acts  i:  25.  Their  reconciliation  may 
transcend,  but  does  not  violate  reason — witness  the  fact  that 
man  may  often  influence  his  fellow-man  so  decisively  as  to 
be  able  to  count  on  it,  and  yet  that  act  be  free,  and  re- 
sponsible. 

We  have  seen  (Natural  Theology)  that  God's  omnipotence 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  l6l 

is  not  to  be  understood,  notwithstanding  the 
Omnipotence  does  not  g^j^^^j^    assertions    of    Scripture,    that    all 
do  self-contradictions.         ,  . -"^  .,  ,  .  .      ^t- 

things  are  possible  with    Him,  as  a  power  to 

do  contradictions.  It  has  also  been  usually  said  by  Theo- 
logians that  God's  wil!  is  limited,  not  only  by  the  necessary  con- 
tradiction, but  by  His  own  perfections.  The  meaning  is  cor- 
rect ;  the  phrase  is  incorrect.  God's  will  is  not  limited  ;  for 
those  perfections  as  much  ensure  that  He  will  never  wish,  as  that 
He  will  never  do,  those  incompatible  things.  He  does  abso- 
lutely all  that  He  wills.  But  thus  explained,  the  qualification  is 
fully  sustained  by  Scripture.  2  Tim.  ii :  13;  Tit.  i :  2;  Heb. 
vi:    18  ;  Jas.  1:13. 

I  have  argued  that  God's  will  is  absolutely  executed  over 
all  free  agents  ;  and   yet  Scripture  is  full  of 

,^j    Mf^I-^'-^'^'^- u^j    declarations  that  sinful  men  and  devils  dis- 
vealed  will  distinguished.  -n  1      -r-i  i_  u       ^i  r 

obey  His  will !  There  must  be,  therefore,  a 
distinction  between  His  secret  and  revealed.  His  decretive  and 
preceptive  will.  All  God's  will  must  be,  in  reality,  a  single,  eter- 
nal, immutable  act.  The  distinction,  therefore,  is  one  necessi- 
tated by  our  limitation  of  understanding,  and  relates  only  to  the 
manifestation  of  the  parts  of  this  will  to  the  creature.  By 
God's  decretive  will,  we  mean  that  will  by  which  He  fore- 
ordains whatever  comes  to  pass.  By  His  preceptive,  that  by 
which  He  enjoins  on  creatures  what  is  right  and  proper  for  them 
to  do.  The  decretive  we  also  call  His  secret  will :  because  it  is 
for  the  most  part  (except  as  disclosed  in  some  predictions  and 
the  effectuation)  retained  in  His  own  breast.  His  preceptive  we 
call  His  revealed  will,  because  it  is  published  to  man  for  his 
guidance.  Although  this  distinction  is  beset  with  plausible 
quibbles,  yet  every  man  is  impelled  to  make  it ;  for  otherwise, 
either  alternative  is  odious  and  absurd.  Say  that  God  has  no 
secret  decretive  will,  and  He  wishes  just  what  He  commands 
and  nothing  more,  and  we  represent  Him  as  a  Being  whose  desires 
are  perpetually  crossed  and  baffled :  yea,  trampled  on  ;  the 
most  harassed,  embarrassed,  and  impotent  Being  in  the  uni- 
verse. Deny  the  other  part  of  our  distinction,  and  you  repre- 
sent God  as  acquiescing  in  all  the  iniquities  done  on  earth  and 
in  hell.  Again,  Scripture  clearly  establishes  the  distinction. 
Witness  all  the  texts  already  quoted  to  show  that  God's  sove- 
reignty overrules  all  the  acts  of  men  to  His  purposes.  Add. 
Rom.  xi:  33,  to  end  :  Prov.  xvi:  4.  See  also  Deut.  xxix ;  29. 
Special  cases  are  also  presented,  (the  most  emphatic  possible,) 
in  which  God's  decretive  Avill  differed  from  His  preceptive 
will,  as  wto  the  same  individuals.  See  Exodus  iv:  21-23; 
Ezekiel  iii  :  7,  with  xviii :  31.  These  authentic  cases  offer  an 
impregnable  bulwark  against  Arminian  objections ;  and  prove 
that  it  is  not  Calvinism,  but  Inspiration,  which  teaches  the 
distinction. 

The  objections  are,  that  this  distinction  represents  God  as 


l62  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

either  insincere   in   His  precepts  to  His  crea- 
lec  ons.  tures,  or  else,  as  having  His  own  vohtions  at 

war  among  themselves  :  and  that,  by  making  His  secret  will  de- 
cretive of  sinful  acts  as  well  as  holy,  we  represent  Him  as  un- 
holy. The  seeming  inconsistency  is  removed  by  these  consider- 
ations. "  God's  preceptive  will."  In  this  phrase,  the  word  will 
is  used  in  a  different  sense.  For,  in  fact,  while  God  wills  the 
utterance  of  the  precepts,  the  acts  enjoined  are  not  objects  of 
God's  volition,  save  in  the  cases  where  they  are  actually  em- 
braced in  His  decretive  will.  All  the  purposes  which  God 
carries  out  by  permitting  and  overruling  the  evil  acts  of  His 
creatures,  are  infinitely  holy  and  proper  for  Him  to  carry  out. 
It  may  be  right  for  Him  to  permit  what  it  would  be  wrong  for 
us  to  do,  and  therefore  wrong  for  Him  to  command  us  to  do. 
Not  only  is  it  righteous  and  proper  for  an  infinite  Sovereign  to 
withhold  from  His  creatures,  in  their  folly,  a  part  of  His  in- 
finite and  wise  designs;  but  it  is  absolutely  unavoidable;  for 
their  minds  being  finite,  it  is  impossible  to  make  them  compre- 
hend God's  infinite  plan.  Seeing,  then,  that  He  could  not  give 
them  His  whole  immense  design  as  the  rule  of  their  conduct, 
what  rule  was  it  most  worthy  of  His  goodness  and  holiness  to 
reveal?  Evidently,  the  moral  law,  requiring  of  them  what  is 
righteous  and  good  for  them.  There  is  no  insincerity  in  God's 
giving  this  law,  although  He  may,  in  a  part  of  the  cases,  secretly 
determine  not  to  give  unmerited  grace  to  constrain  men  to  keep 
it.  Remember,  also,  that  if  even  in  these  cases  men  would  keep 
it,  God  would  not  fail  to  reward  them  according  to  His  promise. 
But  God,  foreknowing  that  they  would  freely  choose  not  to  keep 
it,  for  wise  reasons  determines  to  leave  them  to  their  perverse 
choice,  and  overrule  it  to  His  holy  designs.  I  freely  admit  that 
the  divine  nature  is  inscrutable ;  and  that  mystery  must  always 
attach  to  the  divine  purposes.  But  there  is  a  just  sense  in  which 
a  wise  and  righteous  man  might  say,  that  he  sincerely  wished  a 
given  subject  of  his  would  not  transgress,  and  yet  that,  foresee- 
ing his  perversity,  he  fully  purposed  to  permit  it,  and  carry  out 
his  purposes  thereby.  Shall  not  the  same  thing  be  possible  for 
God  in  a  higher  sense? 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  some  parts  of  God's  will  may  be 

said  to  be  antecedent  to,  and  some  parts  con- 
seq^ienT\m  ^""^  ^°""  sequent  to  His  foresight  of  man's  acts— i.  e.. 

as  our  finite  minds  are  compelled  to  conceive 
them.  Thus :  although  God's  will  acts  by  one,  eternal,  com- 
prehensive, simultaneous  act,  we  cannot  conceive  of  His  deter- 
mination to  permit  man's  fall,  except  as  a  consequence  of  His 
prior  purpose  to  create  man ;  (because  if  none  were  created, 
there  would  be  none  to  fall ;)  and  of  His  decree  to  give  a  Re- 
deemer, as  consequent  on  His  foresight  of  the  fall.  But  the 
Arminian  Scholastics  have  perverted  this  simple  distinction  thus, 
making  the  antecedent  act  of  God's  will  precede  the  view  had 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  1 63 

by  God  of  the  creature's  action  ;  and  thq  consequent,  following 
upon,  and  produced  by  that  foresight ;  e.  g.,  the  purpose  to 
create  man  was  antecedent,  to  punish  his  sin  consequent.  I 
object,  that  this  notion  really  violates  the  unity  and  eternity  of 
God's  volition.  2d.  It  derogates  from  the  independence  of 
God's  will,  making  it  determined  by,  instead  of  determining,  the 
creature's  conduct.  3d.  It  overlooks  the  fact  that  all  the  parts 
of  the  chain,  the  means  as  well  as  the  end,  the  second  causes  as 
well  as  consequences,  are  equally  and  as  early  determined  by, 
and  embraced  in,  God's  comprehensive  plan.  As  to  a  sequence 
and  dependency  between  the  parts  of  God's  decree,  the  truth, 
so  far  as  man's  mind  is  capable  of  comprehending,  seems  to  be 
this  :  That  the  decree  is  in  fact  one,  in  God's  mind,  and  has  no 
succession ;  but  we  being  incapable  of  apprehending  it  save  by 
parts,  are  compelled  to  conceive  God,  as  having  regard  in  one 
part  of  His  eternal  plan  to  a  state  of  facts  destined  by  Him  to 
proceed  out  of  another  part  of  it,  This  remark  will  have  no 
little  importance  when  we  come  to  view  supralapsarianism. 

God's    purposes    are    all    independent    of   any     condition 
^   ,,      ■^^    u   ^  .      extcmal  to  Himself  in  this  sense ;  that  they 

God  s  will  absolute.  ,  ,  .  ,      '  n-i 

are  not  caused  by  anything  ao  extra.      Ihe 

things  decreed  may  be  conditioned  on  other  parts  of  His  own 
purpose,  in  that  they  embrace  means  necessary  to  ends.  While 
the  purposes  have  no  cause  outside  of  God,  they  doubtless  all 
have  wise  and  sufficient  reasons,  known  to  God. 

Some,  even  of  Calvinists,  have  seemed  to  find  this*  question 
very  intricate,  if  we  may  judge  by  their  dif- 
first  rule  ofrighr?  ^  ferences.  Let  us  discriminate  clearly  then  ; 
that  by  God's  will  here  we  mean  his  volition 
in  the  specific  sense,  and  not  will  in  the  comprehensive  sense  of 
the  whole  conative  powers.  The  question  is  perspicuously 
stated  in  this  form.  Are  the  precepts  right  merely  because 
God  commands,  or  does  He  command,  because  they  are  in 
themselves  right?  The  latter  is  the  true  answer.  Let  it  be 
understood  again  ;  that  God's  precepts  are,  for  us,  an  actual,  a 
perfect,  and  a  supreme  rule  of  right.  No  Christian  disputes 
this.  For  God's  moral  title  as  our  Maker,  Owner  and  Redeem- 
er, with  the  perfect  holiness  of  His  nature,  makes  it  unquestiona- 
ble, that  our  rectitude  is  always  in  being  and  doing  just  what 
He  requires.  Let  it  be  understoood  again ;  that  in  denying  that 
God's  volition  to  command  is  the  mere  and  sole  first  source  of 
right,  we  do  not  dream  of  any  superior  personal  will,  earlier  than 
God's  and  more  authoritative  than  His,  instructing  and  compel- 
ling Him  to  command  right.  Of  course,  we  repeat,  no  one 
holds  this ;  God  is  the  first,  being  the  eternal  author- 
ity, and  He  is  absolutely  supreme.  Does  one  ask  :  w^iere, 
then,  did  this  moral  distinction  inhere  and  abide,  before 
God  had  given  any  expression  to  it,  in  time,  in  any  leg- 
islative acts  ?  The  answer  is  :  In   the  eternal  principles  of  His 


164  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

moral   essence,   which,  Hke    His   physical,   is   self-existent   and 
eternally  necessary. 

Having  cleared  the   ground,   I   support  my  answer   thus  : 
^  1st.  God  has  an  eternal  and  inalienable  moral 

claim  over  His  moral  creatures,  not  arising 
out  of  any  legislative  act  of  His,  but  immediately  out  of  the 
relation  of  creature  to  Creator,  and  possession  to  its  absolute 
Owner.  For  instance  :  elect  angels  owed  love  and  honor  to 
God,  before  He  entered  into  any  covenant  of  works  with  them. 
This  right  is  as  unavoidable  and  indestructible  as  the  very- 
relation  of  Creator  and  rational  creature.  This  moral  depen- 
dence is  as  original  as  the  natural  dependence  of  being. 
Hence,  it  is  indisputable  that  there  is  a  moral  title  more  original 
than  any  preceptive  act  of  God's  will.  2d.  We  cannot  but 
think  that  these  axioms  of  ethical  principle  are  as  true  of  God's 
rectitude  as  of  man's:  (a)  That  God's  moral  volitions  are  not 
uncaused,  but  have  their  (subjective)  motives,  (b)  That  the 
morality  of  the  volitions  is  the  morality  of  their  intentions.  We 
must  meet  the  question  there,  as  to  God,  just  as  to  any  rational 
agent.  What  is  the  regulative  cause  of  those  right  volitions  ? 
There  is  no  other  answer  but  this  :  God's  eternally  holy 
dispositions ;  His  necessary  -  moral  perfections.  Now,  then, 
if  a  given  precept  of  God  is  right,  His  act  of  will 
in  legislating  it  must  be  right,  and  must  have  its  moral 
quality.  If  this  act  of  divine  will  is  such,  it  must  be 
because  *  its  subjective  motives  have  right  moral  quality. 
Thus  we  are,  per  force,  led  to  recognize  moral  qualities  in 
something  logically  prior  to  the  preceptive  will  of  God,  viz:  in 
His  own  moral  perfections.  3d.  Otherwise,  this  result  must 
follow,  which  is  an  outrage  to  the  practical  reason  :  That  God's 
preceptive  will  might,  conceivably,  have  been  the  reverse  of 
what  it  is,  and  then  the  vilest  things  would  have  been  right,  and 
holiest  things  vile.  4th.  There  would  be  no  ground  for  the 
distinction  between  the  "  perpetual  moral"  and  the  "  temporary 
positive "  command.  All  would  be  merely  positive.  But 
again  :  the  practical  reason  cannot  but  see  a  difference  between 
the  prohibition  of  lying,  and  the  prohibition  of  eating  bacon ! 
5th.  No  argument  could  be  constructed  for  the  necessity  of 
satisfaction  for  guilt,  in  order  to  righteous  pardon  ;  so  that  (as 
will  be  seen)  our  theory  of  redemption  would  be  reduced  to  the 
level  of  Socinian  error.  And,  last,  God's  sovereignty  would 
not  be  moral.     His  "might  would  make  His  right." 


LECTURE  XV. 

GOD'S  MORAL  ATTRIBUTES. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Define  and  prove  from  Scripture  God's  absolute  and  relative,  His  distributive 
and  punitive  justice. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  19.  Dick,  Lect.  25.  Ridgeley,  Body  of  Divinity,  Qu. 
7,  p.  164.  Watson's  Theol.  Institutes,  pt.  ii,  ch.  7,  ^,  (i.)  Chr.  Knapp,  § 
30,  31- 

2.  What  is  God's  goodness  ?     What  the  relation  of  it  to  His  love,  His  grace  and 
His  mercy  ?     What  Scriptural  proof  that  He  possesses  these  attributes  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  20.  Dick,  Lect.  24.  Ridgeley,  Qu.  7,  p.  168,  &c. 
Charnock,  Disc,  xii,  g  2,  3,  (pp.  255  to  287.)  Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  pt.  ii,  ch. 
6.     Knapp,  §  28,  2. 

3.  Define  and  prove  God's  truth  and  faithfulness,  and  defend  from  objections. 
Dick,  Lect.  26.     Ridgeley,  Qu.  7,  p.  1S6,   &c.     Watson's  Theol.   Inst.  pt.  ii. 
ch.  7,  (2.). 

4.  'Vhat  is  the  holiness  of  God?     Prove  it. 

Dick,  Lect.  27.  Charnock,  Disc,  xi,  §  i,  (pp.  135-144.)  Ridgeley,  Qu.  7,  p. 
160,  &c. 

5.  Prove  God's  infinitude. 

Turrettin,  Loc  iii,  Qu.  8,  9.     Thornwell,  Vol.  i,  Lect.  4. 

AX/'E  have  now  reached  thai  which  is  the  most  glorious,  and 
at    the   same    time,   the   most    important   class   of    God's 

attributes ;  those  which  qualify  Him  as  an 
Go'S'Tl'efiw''"    infinitely   perfect    moral    Being.     These    are 

the  attributes  which  regulate  His  will,  and 
are,  therefore,  so  to  speak,  His  practical  perfections.  Without 
these,  His  infinite  presence,  power,  and  wisdom  would  be 
rather  objects  of  terror  and  fear,  than  of  love  and  trust. 
Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  the  horror  of  a  rational 
being  could  be  more  thoroughly  awakened,  than  by  the  idea  of 
wicked  omnipotence  wielding  all  possible  powers  for  the  ruin 
or  promotion  of  our  dearest  interests,  yet  uncontrolled  alike  by 
created  force,  and  by  moral  restraints.  The  forlorn  despair  of 
the  wretch  who  is  left  alone  in  the  solitude  of  the  ocean,  to 
buffet  its  innumerable  waves,  would  be  a  faint  shadow  of  that 
which  would  settle  over  a  universe  in  the  hands  of  such  a  God. 
But  blessed  be  His  name.  He  is  declared,  by  His  works  and 
word,  to  be  a  God  of  complete  moral  perfections.  And  this  is 
the  ground  on  which  the  Scriptures  base  their  most  frequent 
and  stronryest  claims  to  the  praise  and  love  of  His  creatures. 
His  power,  His  knowledge,  His  wisdom.  His  immutability  are 
glorious ;  but  the  glory  and  loveliness  of  His  moral  attributes 
excelleth. 

God's  distinct  moral  attributes  may  be  counted  as  three  — 

His  justice,  His  goodness,  and  His  truth  — 

Enumeration.  ^i  .1  •  •        tt- 

these  three  concurnng  m    His    consummate 

moral  attribute,  holiness. 

165 


i66 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


God's  absolute  justice  is  technically  defined  by  theologians 

_     .     ,  ^     ,        as  the  general  rectitude  of  character,  intrinsic 
I.  Justice  defined.         .       yj.  °  .,,        jj.  .      .         .        '.        .       . 

in  hlis  own  will.     His  relative  justice  is  the 

acting  out  of  that  rectitude  towards  His  creatures.  His  distrib- 
utive justice  is  the  quality  more  precisely  indicated  when  we 
call  Him  a  just  God,  which  prompts  Him  to  give  to  ever>^  one 
his  due.  His  punitive  justice  is  that  phase  of  His  distributive 
justice  which  prompts  Him  always  to  allot  its  due  punishment 
to  sin.  No  Christian  theologian  denies  to  God  the  quality  of 
absolute  justice,  nor  of  a  relative,  as  far  as  His  general  dealings 
with  His  creatures  go.  We  have  seen  that  even  reason  infers 
it  clearly  from  the  authority  of  conscience  in  man;  from  the 
instinctive  pleasure  accompanying  well-doing,  and  pain  attached 
to  ill-doing  ;  from  the  general  tendency  which  God's  providence 
has  established,  by  which  virtue  usually  promotes  individual  and 
social  well-being,  and  vice  destroys  them ;  and  from  many 
providential  retributions  where  crimes  are  made  to  become 
their  own  avengers.  And  Scripture  declares  His  rectitude  in 
too  many  places  and  forms,  to  be  disputed,  e.  g.,  Ps.  Ixxi :  15  ; 
Ezra  ix:  15  ;  Ps.  xix :  9;  cxlv:  17;  Rev.  xvi :  7,  &c.,  &c.,  Ps. 
Ixxxix:  14;   Hab.  i:  13. 

It  is  upon  the  punitive  justice  of  God  that  the  difference 
Is   God's   punitive    arises.     As  the  establishing  of  this  will  estab- 
justice  essential  ?   Dif-    Hsh  a  fortiori,  the  general  righteousness  of 
ferent  theones.  q^^.^  dealings,  we  shall  continue  the  discus- 

sion on  this  point.  The  Socinians  deny  that  retributive  justice 
is  an  essential  or  an  immutable  attribute  of  God.  They  do 
not,  indeed,  deny  that  God  punishes  sin  ;  nor  that  it  would  be 
right  for  Him  to  do  so  in  all  cases,  if  He  willed  it ;  but  they  deny 
that  there  is  anything  in  His  perfections  to  ensure  His  always 
willing  it,  as  to  every  sin.  Instead  of  believing  that  God's 
righteous  character  impels  Him  unchangeably  to  show  His  dis- 
pleasure against  sin  in  this  w^ay,  they  hold  that,  in  those  cases 
where  He  wills  to  punish  it,  He  does  it  merely  for  the  sinner's 
reformation,  or  the  good  of  His  government.  The  new  school 
of  divines  also  hold  that  while  God's  purpose  to  punish  sin  is 
uniform  and  unchangeable,  it  is  only  that  this  form  of  preven- 
tion against  the  mischiefs  of  sin  may  be  diligently  employed, 
for  the  good  of  the  universe.  They  hold  that  His  law  is  not 
the  expression  of  His  essence,  but  the  invention  of  His  wisdom. 
Both  these  opinions  have  this  in  common  ;  that  they  resolve 
God's  justice  into  benevolence,  or  utility.  The  principle  will 
be  more  thoroughly  discussed  by  me  in  the  Senior  Course,  in 
connection  with  the  satisfaction  of  Christ.  I  only  remark  here, 
that  such  an  account  of  the  divine  attribute  of  justice  is 
attended  by  all  the  absurdities  which  lie  against  the  Utilitarian 
system  of  morals  among  men ;  and  by  others.  It  is  opposed 
to  God's  independence,  making  the  creature  His  end,  instead 
of  Himself,  and  the  carrying  out  of  His  own  perfections.     It 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  l6/ 

violates  our  conscience,  which  teaches  us  that  to  inflict  judicial 
suffering  on  one  innocent,  for  the  sake  of  utility,  would  be 
heinous  wrong,  and  that  there  is  in  all  sin  an  inherent  desert  of 
punishment  for  its  own  sake.  It  resolves  righteousness  into 
mere  prudence,  and  right  into  advantage. 

Now  Calvinists  hold  that  God  is  immutably  determined  by 
His    own    eternal    and    essential    justice,    to 

Affirmative  view.  ^j^-^  every  sin  with  punishment  according  to 
its  desert.  Not  indeed  that  He  is  constrained,  or  His  free- 
agency  is  bound  herein ;  for  He  is  immutably  impelled  by  noth- 
ing but  His  own  perfection.  Nor  do  they  suppose  that  the 
unchangeableness  is  a  blind  physical  necessity,  operating  under 
all  circumstances,  like  gravitation,  with  a  mechanical  regularity. 
It  is  the  perfectly  regular  operation  of  a  rational  perfection,  co- 
existing with  His  other  attributes  of  mercy,  wisdom,  &c.,  and 
therefore  modifying  itself  according  to  its  object;  as  much 
approving,  yea,  demanding,  the  pardon  of  the  penitent  and 
believing  sinner,  for  whose  sins  penal  satisfaction  is  made  and 
applied,  as,  before,  it  demanded  his  punishment.  In  this  sense, 
then :  that  God's  retributive  justice  is  not  a  mere  expedient  of 
benevolent  utility,  but  a  distinct  essential  attribute,  I  argue,  by 
the  following  scriptural  proofs  : 

(a.)  Those  Scriptures  where  God  is  declared  to  be  a  just 
and  inflexible  judge.     Exod.  xxxiv  :   7;  Ps. 

Proved  by  Scripture.    ^.  ^  .    ^^^    ^^....  ^^  .     p^_  ^civ  :  2  ;     1:6;     Is. 

1:  3,  4;  Ps.  xcvi :  13,  &c. 

(b.)  Those  Scriptures  where  God  is  declared  to  hate  sin. 
e.  g.,  Ps.  vii:  ii  ;  Ps.  v:  4,  6;  xlv :  7;  Deut.  iv :  24;  Prov.  xi: 
20;  Jer.  xliv  :  4;  Is.  Ixi :  8.  If  the  Socinian,  or  the  New  Eng- 
land view  were  correct,  God  could  not  be  said  to  hate  sin,  but 
only  the  consequences  of  it.  Now,  God  has  no  passions. 
Drop  the  human  dress,  in  which  this  principle  is  stated ;  and 
the  least  we  can  make  of  this  fixed  hatred  of  God  to  sin,  is  a 
fixed  purpose  in  Him  to  treat  it  as  hateful. 

(c.)  From  God's  moral  law,  which  is  the  transcript  of  His 
own  essential  perfections.  Of  this  law,  the 
penal  sanction  is  always  an  essential  part. 
See  Rom.  x  :  5  ;  Gal.  iii :  12;  Rom.  v  :  1 2  ;  Ex.  xx :  7. 

This  fixed  opposition  to  sin  is  necessary  to  a  pure  Being. 
Moral  good  and  evil  are  the  two  poles,  to  which  the  magnet, 
rectitude,  acts.  The  same  force  which  makes  one  pole  attract 
the  magnet,  makes  the  other  pole  repel  it.  The  Northern  end 
of  the  needle  can  only  seek  the  North  pole,  as  it  repels  the 
Southern.  Since  sin  and  holiness  in  the  creature  are  similar 
opposites,  that  moral  action  by  which  the  right  conscience 
approves  the  one,  is  the  counterpart  of  its  opposition  to  the 
other.  It  is  as  preposterous  to  claim  that  God's  approval  of 
right  is  essential  to  His  perfection,  but  His  disapproval  of 
wrong,  is  not ;  as  to  tell  us  of  a  magnet  which  infallibly  turned 


l68  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

its  one  end  to  the  North  star,  but  did  not  certainly  turn  its 
opposite  end  to  the  Southern  pole.  Socinians,  like  all  other 
legalists,  claim  that  God's  approval  of  good  works  is  essential 
in  Him.  It  should  be  added,  that  this  essential  opposition  to 
sin,  if  it  exists  in  God,  must  needs  show  itself  in  regular  penal 
acts  :  because  He  is  sovereign  and  almighty  ;  and  He  is  Supreme 
Ruler.  If  He  did  not  treat  sin  as  obnoxious.  His  regimen 
would  tend  to  confound  moral  distinction.  To  all  this  corres- 
ponds the  usual  picture  of  God's  justice  in  Scripture,  as  Rom. 
2  :  6-1 1  ;  Prov.  xvii :  15. 

The  ceremonial  law  equally  proves  it:  for  the  great  object 
of  all  the  bloody  sacrifices  was  to  hold  forth  the  great  theologi- 
cal truth  that  there  is  no  pardon  of  the  sinner,  without  the 
punishment  of  the  sin  in  a  substitute,   Heb.  ix  :  22. 

(d.)  The  death  of  Christ,  a  sinless  being  who  had  no  guilt 
■D   n-u  ■  .'    T^    .u     of  His  own  for  which  to  atone.     We  are  told 

By  Christ  s  Death.       1  ,,  •  1    •  1  >»    /^i     •  1 

that       our  sins  were  laid  upon      Christ ;    that 

"  He  was  made  sin,"  that  "  He  suffered  the  just  for  the  unjust," 
"  that  God  might  be  just,  and  yet  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly  ;" 
that  "  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him,"  &c.  Is. 
liii:  5-1 1 ;  Rom.  iii :  24-26  ;  Gal.  iii :  13,  14  ;  ist.  Pet.  iii :  18, &c. 
Now,  if  Christ  only  suffered  to  make  a  governmental  display  of 
the  mischievous  consequences  of  sin,  then  sin  itself  was  not 
punished  in  Him,  and  all  the  sins  of  the  pardoned  remain  forever 
unpunished,  in  express  contradiction  to  these  Scriptures, 
Moreover,  the  transaction  at  Calvary,  instead  of  being  a  sub- 
lime exhibition  of  God's  righteousness,  was  only  an  immoral 
farce.  And  last :  not  only  is  God  not  immutably  just,  but  He 
is  capable  of  being  positively  unjust :  in  that  the  only  innocent 
man  since  Adam  was  made  to  suffer  most  of  all  men  ! 

The  particular  phase  of  the  argument  from  God's  rectoral 
Objection,  that  Mag-    justice,    or   moral    relations    to    the    rational 
isirates   Pardon.    An-    universe  as  its  Ruler,  will  be  considered  more 
^'^^^'  appropriately  when  we  come  to  the  doctrine 

of  satisfaction ;  as  also,  Socinian  objections.  One  of  these, 
however,  has  been  raised,  and  is  so  obvious,  that  it  must  be 
briefly  noted  here.  It  is  that  the  righteousness  of  magistrates, 
parents,  masters  and  teachers,  is  not  incompatible  with  some 
relaxations  of  punitive  justice  ;  why  then,  should  that  of  our 
Heavenly  Father  be  so,  who  is  infinitely  benevolent ;  who  is 
the  God  of  love  ?  The  answer  is  :  that  God's  government 
differs  from  theirs  in  three  particulars.  They  are  not  the 
appointed,  supreme  retributors  of  crime  (Rom.  xii  :  19),  and 
their  punishments,  while  founded  on  retributive  justice,  are  not 
chiefly  guided  by  this  motive,  but  by  the  policy  of  repressing 
sin  and  promoting  order.  Second  :  they  are  not  immutable, 
either  in  fact  or  profession  ;  so  that  when  they  change  their 
threats  into  pardons  without  satisfaction  to  the  threatening, 
their   natures    are   not   necessarily    dishonored.       Third  :    they 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 69 

are  not  omniscient,  to  know  all  the  motives  of  the  offender,  and 
all  the  evidences  of  guilt  in  doubtful  cases,  so  as  to  be  able 
exactly  to  graduate  the  degree  and  certainty  of  guilt.  These 
three  differences  being  allowed  for  it,  it  would  be  as  improper 
for  :jan  to  pardon  without  satisfaction,  as  God. 

God's    goodness    is,    to    creatures,     one   of    His    loveliest 
^  ^,    ^  attributes  ;  because  it  is  from  this  that  all  the 

2.      Goa  s  JBenevo-     1  ■  1  ■    1         n  •  n 

lence,  &c.  happmess   which    all    enjoy    flows,   as    water 

from  a  spring.  Goodness  is  the  generic 
attribute  of  which  the  love  of  benevolence,  grace,  pity,  mercy, 
forgiveness,  are  but  specific  actings,  distinguished  by  the  atti- 
tude of  their  objects,  rather  than  by  the  intrinsic  principle. 
Goodness  is  God's  infinite  will  to  dispense  well-being,  in  accord- 
ance with  His  other  attributes  of  wisdom,  righteousness,  &c., 
and  on  all  orders  of  His  creatures  according  to  their  natures 
and  rights.  Love  is  God's  active  (but  passionless)  affection,  by 
which  He  dehghts  in  His  creatures,  and  in  their  well-being,  and 
delights  consequently  in  conferring  it.  It  is  usually  distin- 
guished into  love  of  complacency,  and  love  of  benevolence.  The 
former  is  a  moral  emotion,  (though  in  God  passionless),  being 
His  holy  delight  in  holy  qualities  in  His  creatures,  co-operating 
with  His  simple  goodness  to  them  as  creatures.  The  latter  is  but 
His  goodness  manifesting  itself,  actively.  The  first  loves  the 
holy  being  on  account  of  his  excellence.  The  second  loves  the 
sinner  in  spite  of  his  wickedness.  When  the  student  contrasts 
such  texts  as.  Ps,  vii :  ii.;  Rom.  v:  8,  he  sees  that  this  dis- 
tinction must  be  made.  Grace  is  the  exercise  of  goodness 
where  it  is  undeserved,  as  in  bestowing  assured  eternal  blessed- 
ness on  the  elect  angels,  and  redemption  on  hell-deserving  man. 
And  because  all  spiritual  and  holy  qualities  in  saints  are 
bestowed  by  God,  without  desert  on  their  part,  they  are  called 
also,  their  graces,  yaniaaaza.  Pity,  or  simple  compassion,  is 
goodness  going  forth  towards  a  suffering  object,  and  prompting, 
of  course,  to  the  removal  of  suffering.  Mercy  is  pity  towards 
one  suffering  for  guilt.  But  as  all  the  suffering  of  God's  rational 
creatures  is  for  guilt.  His  compassion  to  them  is  always  mercy. 
All  mercy  is  also  grace ;  but  all  grace  is  not  mercy. 

Many    theologians  (of  the    Socinian,    New    England    and 
Are  all   the    moral    Universalists  schools)  overstrain  God's  good- 
attributes  only  phases    ness,  by  representing  it  as  His  one,  universally 
of  Goodness  ?  prevalent  moral  attribute  ;  in  such  sense  that 

His  justice  is  but  a  punitive  policy  dictated  by  goodness,  His 
truth  but  a  politic  dictate  of  His  benevolence,  &c.  Their  chief 
reliance  for  support  of  this  view  is  on  the  supposed  contrariety 
of  goodness  and  retributive  justice  ;  and  on  such  passages  as  : 
"God  is  love,"  &c.  To  the  last,  the  answer  is  plain:  if  an 
exclusive  sense  must  be  forced  upon  such  a  text,  as  makes  it 
mean  that  God  has  no  quality  but  benevolence,  then,  when 
Paul  and  Moses  say:  "  Our  God  is  a  consuming  fire,"  we  should 


J  JO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

be  taught  that  He  has  no  quahty  but  justice  ;  and  when  another 
says  :  "  God  is  hght,"  that  He  is  nothing  but  simple  intelhgence, 
without  will  or  character.  The  interpretation  of  all  must  be 
consistent  iJiter  se.  The  supposed  incompatibility  of  goodness 
and  justice,  we  utterly  deny.  They  are  two  phases,  or  aspects, 
of  the  same  perfect  character.  God  is  not  good  to  a  certain 
extent,  and  then  just,  for  the  rest  of  the  way,  as  it  were  by 
patches ;  but  infinitely  good  and  just  at  once,  in  all  His  character 
and  in  all  His  dealings.  He  would  not  be  truly  good  if  He  were 
not  just.  The  evidence  is  this  very  connection  between  holiness 
and  happiness,  so  intimate  as  to  give  pretext  for  the  confusion 
of  virtue  and  benevolence  among  moralists.  God's  wise  good- 
ness, so  ineffably  harmonized  by  His  own  wisdom  and  holiness, 
would  of  itself  prompt  Him  to  be  divinely  just;  and  His  justness, 
while  it  does  not  necessitate,  approves  His  divine  goodness. 

The  rational  proofs  of  God's  goodness  have  been  already 
presented,  drawn  from  the  structure  of  man's 
Go^d'sSness.°^'  °^  sensitive,  social  and  moral  nature,  and  from 
the  adaptations  of  the  material  world  thereto. 
(See  Natural  Theology.  Lecture  4.)  To  this  I  might  add,  that 
the  very  act  of  constructing  such  a  creation,  where  sentient 
beings  are  provided,  in  their  several  orders,  with  their  respec- 
tive natural  good,  bespeaks  God  a  benevolent  Being.  For,  being 
sufficient  unto  Himself,  it  must  have  been  His  desire  to  com- 
municate His  own  blessedness,  which  prompted  Him  to  create 
these  recipients  of  it.  Does  any  one  object,  that  we  say  He 
made  all  for  His  own  glory  ;  and,  therefore.  His  motive  w-as 
selfish,  and  not  benevolent?  I  rejoin;  What  must  be  the 
attributes  of  that  Being,  who  thus  considers  His  own  glory  as 
most  appropriately  illustrated  in  bestowing  enjoyment?  The 
fact  that  God  makes  beneficence  His  glor>^,  proves  Him,  in  the 
most  intrinsic  and  noble  sense, benevolent. 

When  we  approach  Scripture,  we  find  goodness,  in  all  its 
several  phases,  profusely  asserted  of  God.  Ps.  cxlv:  8,  9  ;  1st 
Jno.  iv  :  8  ;  Ex.  xxxiv  :  6 ;  Fs.  xxxiii :  5  ;  Hi :  i  ;  ciii :  8  ;  xiii :  1 7 ; 
Ps.  cxxxvi ;  Jas.  v  :  ii  ;   2d.  Peter,  iii :  15,  &c. 

But  the  crowning  proof  which    the   Scriptures   present    of 
.  God's  goodness,  is  the  redemption  of  sinners. 

Rede°mJtrol^'°°  '°"'  ^om.  v:  8  ;  Jno.  iii:  16;  ist.  Jno.  iii:  i  ;  iv  : 
10.  The  enhancements  of  this  amazing  display 
are,  first :  that  man's  misery  was  so  entirely  self-procured,  and 
the  sin  which  procured  it  so  unspeakably  abominable  to  God's 
infinite  holiness ;  second  :  that  the  misery  from  which  He 
delivers  is  so  immense  and  terrible,  while  the  blessedness  He 
confers  is  so  complete,  exalted  and  everlasting;  third:  that 
ruined  man  was  to  Him  so  entirely  unimportant  and  unneces- 
sary, and  moreover,  so  trivial  and  little  when  compared  with 
God;  fourth:  that  our  continued  attitude  towards  Him 
throughout  all  this  plan  of  mercy  is  one  of  aggravating  unthank- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I^I 

fulness,  enmity  and  rebellion,  up  to  our  conversion ;  fifth  :  that  God 
should  have  given  such  a  price  for  such  a  wretched  and  hateful 
object,  as  the  humiliation  of  His  own  Son,  and  the  condescend- 
ing work  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  last :  that  He  should  have 
exerted  the  highest  wisdom  known  to  man  in  any  of  the  divine 
counsels,  and  the  noblest  energies  of  divine  power,  to  reconcile 
His  truth  and  justice  with  His  goodness  in  man's  redemption. 
Each  of  these  features  has  been  justly  made  the  subject  of 
eloquent  illustration.  In  this  argument  is  the  inexhaustible 
proof  for  God's  goodness.  The  work  of  redemption  reveals 
a  love,  compassion,  condescension,  so  strong,  that  nothing  short 
of  eternity  will  suffice  to  comprehend  it. 

The  great  standing  difficulty  concerning  the  divine  good- 
ness has  been  already  briefly  considered,  in  Lect.  v,  §  iv. 

God's  truth  may  be  said  to  be  an  attribute  which  charac- 
terizes all  God's  other  moral  attributes,  and 
FaUhfulness^'"*'  ^""^  ^'^  intellectual.  The  word  truth  is  so  simple 
as  to  be,  perhaps,  undefinable.  It  may  be 
said  to  be  that  which  is  agreeable  to  reality  of  things.  God's 
knowledge  is  perfectly  true  ;  being  exactly  correspondent  with 
the  reality  of  the  objects  thereof.  His  wisdom  is  true;  being 
unbiased  by  error  of  knowledge,  prejudice,  or  passion.  His 
justice  is  true;  judging  and  acting  always  according  to  the  real 
state  of  character  and  facts.  His  goodness  is  true  ;  being  per- 
fectly sincere,  and  its  outgoings  exactly  according  to  His  own 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  real  state  of  its  objects,  and  His  jus- 
tice. But  in  a  more  special  sense,  God's  truth  is  the  attribute 
which  characterizes  all  His  communications  to  His  creatures. 
When  those  communications  are  promissory,  or  minatory,  it  is 
called  His  faithfulness.  This  attribute  has  been  manifested 
through  two  ways,  to  man;  the  testimony  of  our  senses  and  in- 
telligent faculties,  and  the  testimony  of  Revelation.  If  our  con- 
fidence in  God's  truth  were  undermined,  the  effect  would  be 
universally  ruinous,  Not  only  would  Scripture  with  all  its  doc- 
trines, promises,  threatenings,  precepts,  and  predictions,  become 
worthless,  but  the  basis  of  all  confidence  in  our  own  faculties 
would  be  undermined ;  and  universal  skepticism  would  arrest 
all  action.  Man  could  neither  believe  his  fellow-man,  nor  his 
own  experience,  nor  senses,  nor  reason,  nor  conscience,  nor  con- 
sciousness, if  he  could  not  believe  his  God. 

The  evidences  of  God's  truth  and  truthfulness  are  two-fold. 

^  . ,  , .    ,        We  find    that    He    deals    truly  in  the  infor- 

Lvidences  oi  it,  from  ,  •  i  •   -u     tt       i  i    •        i 

j^eagon.  mations   which    He    has    ordamed    our    own 

senses  and  faculties  to  give  us,  whenever  they 
are  legitimately  used.  The  grounds  upon  which  we  believe 
them  have  been  briefly  reviewed  in  my  remarks  upon  meta- 
physical skepticism.-  God  has  so  formed  our  minds  that  we 
cannot  but  take  for  granted  the  legitimate  informations  of  our 
senses,  consciousness,  and  intuitions.     But  this  unavoidable  trust 


1/2  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

is  abundantly  confirmed  by  subsequent  experiences.  The  testi- 
monies of  one  sense,  for  instance,  are  always  confirmed  by  those 
of  the  others,  when  they  are  applied  ;  e.  g.,  when  the  eye  tells 
us  a  given  object  is  present,  the  touch,  if  applied,  confirms  it. 
The  expectations  raised  by  our  intuitive  reason,  as  e.  g.,  that 
like  causes  will  produce  like  effects,  are  always  verified  by  the 
occurrence  of  the  expected  phenomena.  Thus  a  continual  pro- 
cess is  going  on,  like  the  "  proving"  of  a  result  in  arithmetic. 
Either  the  seemingly  true  informations  of  our  senses  are  really 
true,  or  the  harmonious  coherency  of  the  set  of  errors  which 
they  assert  is  perfectly  miraculous. 

The  second  class  of  proofs  is  that  of  Scripture.     Truth  and 

^    .  faithfulness   are  often   predicated  of  God  in 

'  the  most   unqualified  terms.     2    Cor.  i :    i8  ; 

Rev.   iii:/;  vi  :    lO;  xv  :   3;  xvi :   7;    Deut.   vii :    9;   Heb.   x  : 

23  ;  Titus  i :   2. 

All  the  statements  and  doctrines  of  Scripture,  so  far  as 
they  come  within  the  scope  of  man's  consciousness  and  intui- 
tions, are  seen  to  be  infallibly  true  ;  as,  for  instance,  that  "  the 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God  ;"  that  we  "  go  astray  as  soon 
as  we  be  born,  speaking  lies,"  &c.,  &c.  Again,  Scripture  pre- 
sents us  with  a  multitude  of  specific  evidences  of  His  truth  and 
faithfulness,  in  the  promises,  threatenings,  and  predictions,  which 
are  contained  there  ;  for  all  have  been  fulfilled,  so  far  as  ripened. 

The  supposed  exceptions,  where  threats  have  been  left  un- 
fulfilled, as  that  of  Jonah  against  Nineveh,  are  of  very  easy 
solution.  A  condition  was  always  either  implied  or  expressed, 
on  which  the  execution  of  the  threat  was  suspended. 

The  apparent  insincerity  of  God's  offers  of  mercy,  and 
commands  of  obedience  and  penitence,  held  forth  to  those  to 
whom  He  secretly  intended  to  give  no  grace  to  comply,  offers  a 
more  plausible  objection.  But  it  has  been  virtually  exploded 
by  v.'hat  was  said  upon  the  secret  and  decretive,  as  distinguished 
from  the  revealed  and  preceptive  will  of  God.  I  shall  return  to 
it  again  more  particularly  when  I  come  to  treat  of  effectual 
calling. 

When    places.    Mount   Zion,    utensils,    oils,    meats,    altars, 

^   ,,   ,^  ,.  days,    &c.,    are    called    holy,    the    obvious 

4.  Crod  s  Holiness.  •  -^1^,1  ,1 

meanmg    is,    that    they    are.  consecrated — 

i.  e.,  set  apart  to  the  religious  service  of  God.  This  idea 
is  also  prominent,  when  God's  priests,  prophets,  and  pro- 
fessed people,  are  called  holy.  But  when  applied  to  God,  the 
word  is  most  evidently  not  used  in  a  ceremonial,  but  a  spiritual 
sense.  Most  frequently  it  seems  to  express  the  general  idea  of 
His  moral  purity,  as  Levit.  xi  :  44;  Ps.  cxlv  :  17;  i  Pet.  i :  15, 
16;  sometimes  it  seems  to  express  rather  the  idea  of  His 
majesty,  not  exclusive  of  His  moral  perfections,  but  inclusive 
also  of  His  power,  knowledge  and  wisdom,  as  in  Ps.  xxii  :  3 ; 
xcviii :    i  ;   Is.  vi  :   3  ;   Rev.  iv  :  8.      Holiness,  therefore,  is  to  be 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  173-, 

regarded,  not  as  a  distinct  attribute,  but  as  the  resultant  of  all 
God's  moral  attributes  together  And  as  His  justice,  goodness,. 
and  truth  are  all  predicated  of  Him  as  a  Being  of  intellect  and 
will,  and  would  be  wholly  irrelevant  to  anything  unintelligent- 
and  involuntary,  so  His  holiness  implies  a  reference  to  the  same 
attributes.  His  moral  attributes  are  the  special  crown ;  His 
intelligence  and  will  are  the  brow  that  wears  it.  His  holiness- 
is  the  collective  and  consummate  glory  of  His  nature  as  an 
infinite,  morally  pure,  active,  and  intelligent  Spirit. 

We  have  now  gone  around  the  august  circle  of  the  Divine 
,  attributes,  so  far  as  they  are  known  to  us.    In 

5.  o  s  n  m  y.  another  sense  I  may  say  that  the  summation 
of  them  leads  us  to  God's  other  consummate  attribute — His  in- 
finitude. This  is  an  idea  which  can  only  be  defined  negatively. 
We  mean  by  it  that  God's  being  and  attributes  are  wholly  with- 
out bounds.  Some  divines,  indeed,  of  modern  schools,  would 
deny  that  we  mean  anything  by  the  term,  asserting  that  infini- 
tude is  an  idea  which  the  human  mind  cannot  have  at  all.  They 
employ  Sir  W.  Hamilton's  well  known  argument  that  "  the 
finite  mind  cannot  think  the  unconditioned  ;  because  to  think  it 
is  to  limit  it."  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  the  plain  truth 
on  this  subject  is,  that  man's  mind  does  apprehend  the  idea  of 
infinitude,  (else  whence  the  word  ?)  but  that  it  cannot  compre- 
hend it.*  It  knows  that  there  is  the  infinite ;  it  cannot  fully 
know  what  it  is.  God's  nature  is  absolutely  without  bound,  as- 
to  His  substance,  (immense,)  as  to  His  duration,  (eternal,)  as  to 
His  knowledge,  (omniscience,)  as  to  His  will,  (omnipotence,)  as- 
to  His  moral  perfections,  (holiness.)     It  is  an  infinite  essence. 

One  of  the  consequences  which  flows   from  these  perfec- 
tions of   God    in    His    absolute  sovereignty, 
upremacy.  which  in  SO  often  asserted  of  Him  in  Scrip- 

ture ;  e.  g.,  Dan.  iv :  35;  Rev.  xix  :  16;  Rom.  ix :  15-23;  i 
Tim.  vi:  15  ;  Rev.  iv  :  1 1.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  a  power  to 
do  everything,  as  e.  g.,  to  punish  an  innocent  creature,  contra- 
dictory to  God's  own  perfections  ;  but  a  righteous  title  to  do 
everything,  and  control  every  creature,  unconstrained  by  any- 
thing outside  His  own  will,  but  always  in  harmony  with  His  own 
voluntary  perfections.  When  we  call  it  a  righteous  title,  we 
mean  that  it  is  not  only  a  duvafjic^,  but  an  i^uuaca,  not  only  a 
physical  potentia,  but  a  moral  potestas.  The  foundations  of 
this  righteous  authority  are,  first,  God's  infinite  perfections ; 
second,  His  creation  of  all  His  creatures  out  of  nothing ;  and 
third,  His  preservation  and  blessing  of  them.  This  sovereignty, 
of  course,  carries  with  it  the  correlative  duty  of  implicit  obedi- 
ence on  our  part. 

But  second :  Another  consequence  which   flows  from  the 
infinite  perfections  of  God  is  ihat  He  is  entitled  not  only  to  dis- 

*  See,  on  this  point,  my  work   on  the   Sensualistic  Philosophy  of  the  19th  Cen- 
tury ;  Chap.  X    Schuyler's  Logic — Last  Part. 


1/4  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

pose  of  US  and  our  services,  for  His  own  glory,  but  to  receive 
our  supreme,  sincere  affections.  Just  in  degree  as  the  hearts  of 
His  intelligent  creatures  are  right,  will  they  admire,  revere,  and 
love  God,  above  all  creatures,  singly  or  collectively. 


LECTURE  XVI. 

THE  TRINITY. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Explain  the  origin  and  meaning  of  the  tenns,  Trinit)',  Essence,  Substance 
Subsistence,  Person,  u/xoovgiov. 

Turrettin,  Loc,  iii,  Qu.  23.  Hill's  Divin.,  bk.  iii.  ch.  10,  §  2,  3.  Knapp,  g 
42,  3 ;  43,  2.  Dick,  Lect.  28.  Dr.  W.  Cunningham,  Hist.  Theol.  ch.  9, 
I2.  _ 

2.  Give  the  history  of  opinions  touching  the  Trinity ;  and  especially  the  Patripas- 
sian,  SabbeUian  and  Avian. 

Knapp,  ^  42  and  43.  Hill,  bk.  iii,  ch.  10.  Dick,  Lect.  29.  Hagenback, 
Hist,  of  Doc.  Mosheim,  Com.  de  Reb.  ante  Constantinum,  Vol.  i,  §  68,  Vol. 
ii  §  32  and  33.     Dr.  W.  Cunningham,  Hist.  Theol.,  ch.  9,  g  i. 

3.  Define  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  held  by  the  orthodox :    and  state  the 
propositions  included  in  it. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  25,  1-3,  §  and  Qu.  27.  Hill  and  Dick,  as  above.  Jno. 
Howe,  "Calm  and  Sober  Inquiry  Concerning  Possibility  of  a  Trinity." 

4.  What  rationahstic  explanations  of  the  doctrine  were  attempted  by  the  Origen- 
ists;  and  what  by  the  mediaeval  scholastics?     Are  they  of  any  value? 

Th.  Aquinas,  Summa.  Hill,  as  above.  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.,  2  Am.  Edit., 
Boston,  Vol.  ii,  p.  360,  &c.,  Vol.  iv,  457,  &c.  Mosheim,  Com.,  Vol.  ii,  \  27 
and  31.     Knapp,  \  42.     Watson,  Theol.  Inst.,  pt.  ii,  ch.  8,  i  (i.)  2. 

5.  Present  the  general  Bible  evidence  of  a  Trinity,  from  the  Old  Testament  and 
from  the  New. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii.  Qu.  25  and   26.     Dick,  Lect.  28.     Knapp,  \  34,  35. 

HILE  a  part  of  the  terms  introduced  by  the  Scholastics 

to  define  this  doctrine  are  useful,  others  of  them  illustrate 

in  a  striking  manner  the  disposition  to  sub- 
1.  Nomenclature.         ^^j^^^^  ^^^^^    ^^^  j^^^^^  ^^^    ^^    ^^^^^   ^^^^^_ 

selves  into  the  belief  that  they  had  extended  the  latter,  by 
inventing  the  former.  The  Greek  Fathers,  like  the  theologians 
of  our  country,  usually  make  no  distinction  between  essence, 
and  substance,  representing  both  by  the  word  ouaia,  being. 
But  the  Latin  Scholastics  make  a  distinction  between  essentia, 
esse,  and  snbsta7itia.  By  the  first,  they  mean  that  which  con- 
stitutes the  substance,  the  kind  of  thing  it  is :  or  its  nature,  if 
it  be  a  thing  created.  By  the  second,  they  mean  the  state  of 
being  in  existence.  By  the  third,  they  mean  the  subject  itself, 
which  exists,  and  to  which  the  essence  belongs.  Subsistence 
differs  from  substance,  as  mode  differs  from  that  of  which  it  is 
the  mode.  To  call  a  thing  substance  only  affirms  that  it  is  an 
existing  thing.  Its  subsistence  marks  the  mode  in  which  it 
exists,  e.  g.,  matter  and  spirit  are  both  substances  of  different 
kinds.     But  they  subsist  very  differently.     The   infinite  spirit 


W 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1/5 

exists  as  a  simple,  indivisible  substance ;  but  it  subsists  as  three 
persons.  Such  is  perhaps  the  most  intelligible  account  of  the 
use  of  these  two  terms ;  but  the  pupil  will  see,  if  he  analyses 
his  own  ideas,  that  they  help  him  to  no  nearer  or  clearer  affirm- 
ative conception  of  the  personal  distinction. 

The  word  Person,  ~o(iao')-i>v  persona,  (sometimes  urcoaraaic: 
in  the  later  Greek),  means  more  than  the  Latin  idea,  of  a  7'ole 
sustained  for  the  time  being;  but  less  than  the  popular  modern 
sense,  in  which  it  is  employed  as  equivalent  to  individual.  Its 
meaning  will  be  more  fully  defined  below.  Uhj-oouatoci  means  of 
identical  substance.  The  Greek  Fathers  also  employed  the 
word  itj-sncyojor^ac::,  intercomprehension,  to  signify  that  the  per- 
sonal distinction  implied  no  separation  of  substance.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  there  is  the  most  intimate  mutual  embracing  of 
each  in  each ;  what  we  should  call,  were  the  substance  mate- 
rial, an  interpenetration. 

The  subsistence  of  the  three  persons  in  the  Godhead  was 

the  earliest  subject  of  general  schism  in  the 

/•  "^^r^^  '^"il'^'^"^^    primitive  Church.     To  pass  over  the  primi- 
of  Opinion  on  Trinity.     ^.  „  .  ^      ^t       ■    ^  ^ 

.  tive    Gnostic    and    Manichaean    sects,    three 

tendencies,  or  schools  of  opinion,  may  be  marked  in  the  earlier 
ages ;  and  in  all  subsequent  times,  the  Orthodox,  or  Trinita- 
rian, the  Monarchian,  and  the .  Arian.  The  first  will  be 
expounded  in  its  place.  The  tendency  of  mind  prompting 
both  the  others  may  be  said  to  be  the  same,  and  indeed,  the 
same  which  has  prevailed  ever  since,  viz :  a  desire  to  evade  the 
inscrutable  mystery  of  three  in  one,  by  so  explaining  the 
second  and  third  persons,  as  to  reach  an  absolute  unity  both  of 
person  and  substance,  for  the  self-existent  God.  {[J-oy^j  ^P'//j-) 
Hence,  it  may  justly  be  said  that  Arianism,  and  even  Socinian- 
ism,  are  as  truly  monarchian  theories,  as  that  of  Noetus,  to 
whom  the  title  was  considered  as  most  appropriate. 

Noetus,  an  obscure  clergyman,  (if  a  clergyman)  of  Smyrna, 
is  said  to  have  founded  a  sect  on  the.doc- 
Patripassian.  \_rme,  that  there  is  only  one  substance  and 

person  in  the  Godhead ;  that  the  names.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  are  nothing  but  names  for  certain  phases  of  action  or 
roles,  which  God  successively  assumes.  Christ  was  the  one 
person,  the  Godhead  or  Father,  united  to  a  holy  man,  Jesus, 
by  a  proper  Hypostatic  union.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  still  this 
same  person,  the  Father,  acting  His  part  as  revealer  and  sancti- 
fier.  Hence,  it  is  literally  true,  that  the  Father  suffered,  i.  e., 
in  that  qualified  sense  in  which  the  Godhead  was  concerned  in 
the  sufferings  experienced  by  the  humanity,  in  the  Mediatorial 
Person.  This  theory,  while  doing  violence  to  Scripture,  and 
deranging  our  theology  in  many  respects,  is  less  fatal  by  far, 
than  that  of  Arians  and  Socinians :  because  it  retains  the 
proper  divinity  of  the  Messiah  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  Sabellian  theory  (broached  by  Sabellius,  of  Pentap- 


176  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

olis  in  Lybia  Cyrenaica,  about  A.  D.  268,) 
has  been  by  some  represented  as  though  it 
were  hardly  distinguishable  from  the  Patripassian ;  and  as 
though  he  made  the  names,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  the 
mere  titles  of  three  modes  of  action  which  the  one  Godhead 
successively  assumes.  By  others  it  has  been  represented  as 
only  a  sort  of  high  Socinianism,  as  though  he  had  taught  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  an  influence  emanating  from  the  Godhead, 
and  Christ  was  a  holy  man  upon  whom  a  similar  influence  had 
been  projected.  But  Mosheim  has  shown,  I  think,  in  his  Com. 
de  Rebus,  &c.,  that  both  are  incorrect,  and  that  the  theory  of 
Sabellius  was  even  more  abstruse  than  either  of  these.  The 
term  which  he  seems  to  have  employed  was  that  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  three  forms  [ayr^imza)  of  the  God- 
head, which  presented  real  portions  of  His  substance,  extended 
into  them,  as  it  were,'  by  a  sort  of  spiritual  division.  Thus,  the 
Son  and 'Holy  Ghost  are  not  parts  of  the  Father;  but  aU  three 
are  parts,  or  forms,  of  a  more  recondite  godhead.  According 
to  this  scheme,  therefore,  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  precisely 
as  divine  as  the  Father;  but  it  will  appear  to  the  attentive  stu-, 
dent  very  questionable,  whether  the  true  godhead  of  all  three 
be  not  vitiated. 

The  theory  of  Arius  is  so  fully  stated,  and  well  known, 
that  though  more  important,  it  needs  few 
words.  He  represents  the  Son,  prior  to  His 
incarnation,  as  an  infinitely  exalted  creature,  produced  (or  gen- 
erated) by  God  out  of  nothing,  endued  with  the  nearest  possible 
approximation  to  His  own  perfections,  adopted  into  sonship, 
clothed  with  a  sort  of  deputized  divinity,  and  employed  by 
God  as  His  glorious  agent  in  all  His  works  of  creation  and 
redemption.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  merely  a  /.ziana  x-irrndTu^ 
produced  by  the  Son. 

Now,  it  has  been  well  stated  by  Dr.  Hill,  that  there  can  be 
Error  tends  either  to    ^"^  three  schemes  in  substance  :    the   ortho- 
obliterate  or  widen  per-    dox,  the  Patripassian,  and  the  Subordination- 
sonal  distinctions.  jg^_     ^jj  attempts  to  devise  some  other  path, 

have  merged  themselves  virtually  into  one  or  the  other  of  these 
errors.  Either  the  personal  distinctions  are  obliterated,  or  they 
are  so  widened  as  to  make  the  Son  another  and  an  inferior 
substance.  Now,  the  refutation  of  the  latter  schemes  will  be 
sufficiently  accomplished  if  we  succeed  (in  the  next  Lecture)  in 
establishing  the  proper  divinity,  and  identity  of  substance  of 
the  Son. 

The  refutation  of   the   former  class  of  theories  is  effected 
by  showing  that  some  true  and  definite  dis- 
refuJeT'"''"'"  ''^''"''    tinction  of  persons  is  predicted  in  Scripture 
of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.     It  will 
appear  in  so  many  places,  asserted  in  so  many  forms,  so  inter- 
twined with  the  very  woof   of   the   Scriptures,  that  its  denial 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  Yjy 

does  fatal  violence  to  the  integrity  of  their  language,  (a.)  I 
point  to  those  numerous  passages,  where  one  Person  is  said  to 
act  upon,  or  act  through,  another.  See,  e.  g.,  Exod.  xxiii :  20; 
Ps.  ii :  6,  ex.;  Is.  xlii :  i ,  Hii :  12;  Jno.  xv:26;  xx:2i,  &c., 
&c.,  where  God  the  Father  is  said  to  send,  to  enthrone,  to 
appoint  to  sacerdotal  office,  to  uphold,  to  reward  the  Son,  and 
the  Son  and  Father  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost,  (b.)  Consider 
those,  in  which  mutual  principles  of  affection  are  said  to  subsist 
between  the  persons.  Is.  xliii :  i  ;  Jno.  x:  17,  18,  &c.,  &c.  (c) 
There  is  a  multitude  of  other  passages,  where  voluntary  princi- 
ples and  volitions  are  said  to  be  exercised  by  the  several  per- 
sons as  such,  towards  inferior  and  external  objects.  Exod. 
xxxiii:  21.  (The  subject  is  the  Messiah,  as  will  be  proved.) 
Eph.  iv:  30,  Rev.  vi :  16,  &c.,  &c.  Yet,  since  these  principles 
are  all  perfectly  harmonious,  as  respects  the  three  persons, 
there  is  no  dissension  of  will,  breach  in  unity  of  council,  or 
difference  of  perfections,  (d)  There  is  a  still  larger  multitude 
of  texts,  which  assert  of  the  persons  as  such,  actions  and 
agencies  toward  inferior,  external  objects.  See,  for  instance, 
Jno.  v:  X9;  I  Cor.xii:  ii,  &c.,  &c.  Now,  if  these  personal 
names,  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  meant  no  more  than 
three  influences  or  energies,  or  three  phases  of  action  of  the 
same  person,  or  three  forms  of  one  substance,  is  it  not  incredi- 
ble that  all  these  properties  of  personality,  choosing,  loving, 
hating,  sending  and  being  sent,  understanding,  acting,  should 
be  asserted  of  them  ?  It  would  be  the  wildest  abuse  of 
language  ever  dreamed  of. 

The    doctrine    of    the    Trinity,  as   held   by   the    Catholic 

Church,  cannot  be  better  defined,  than  in  the 

_^3.  Definition  of Trin-    ^^^^^  ^f  our  Confession.    (Recite  ch.  II,  §  3.) 

It  embraces  the  following  propositions  : 

1.  The  true  unity,  indivisibility,  and  simplicity  of  God. 

2.  The  subsistence  of  a  threefold  personal  distinction, 
marked  by  a  part  of  the  properties  of  separate  personalities,  (in 
some  inscrutable  manner,  entirely  compatible  with  true  unity) 
as  intelligence,  active  principles,  volition,  action. 

3.  Identity  of  substance,  so  that  the.  whole  godhead  is 
truly  in  each  person,  without  confusion  or  division,  and  all  the 
essence  belongs  alike  to  all  the  persons. 

4.  The  distinction  of  the  three  persons,  each  by  its  prop- 
erty, incommunicable  from  one  person  to  another,  and  the  exist- 
ence consequently  of  eternal  relations  between  them. 

Now,  that  it    is  inscrutable  how  these  things  can  be,  we 
freely  admit.     Did  they  involve   a  necessary 
impSle!'^''^'''"^'   self-contradiction,  we  should  also   admit  that 
the  understanding  would  be  incapable  of  re- 
ceiving them  all  together.     But  we  do  not  hold  that  the  persons 
are  three  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  are  one.     If  it  be 
asked  what  is  the  precise  meaning   of  the  phrase,  person  in  the 
12* 


178  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Godhead  ?  we  very  freely  answer,  that  we  know  only  in  part. 
You  will  observe  that  all  the  Socinian  and  Rationalist  objec- 
tions mentioned  in  your  text-books  against  this  doctrine,  either 
proceed  on  the  misrepresentation,  that  we  make  three  equal  to 
one,  (as  in  the  notorious  Socinian  formula  ;  let  a.  b.  c.  repre- 
sent the  persons,  and  x.  the  Godhead  ;  then  a==x  :  b=x  :  c=x. 
Add,  and  we  have  a+b+c=3  x=x,)  in  the  same  sense:  or 
they  are  argumenta  ad  ignorantiam.  But  is  it  not  just  we  should 
expect,  that  when  God  reveals  something  about  the  subsistence 
of  His  being,  it  should  be  thoroughly  inscrutable  to  us  ?  We 
must  remember  that  the  human  mind  has  no  cognizance  of  sub- 
stance, in  fact,  except  as  the  existing  ground,  to  which  our  in- 
tuitions impel  us  to  refer  properties.  It  is  only  the  properties 
that  we  truly  conceive.  This  is  true  of  material  substance; 
how  much  more  true  of  spiritual  substance  ?  And  more  yet  of 
the  infinite  ?  God,  in  revealing  Himself  to  the  natural  reason, 
only  reveals  His  being  and  properties  or  attributes — His  sub- 
stance remains  as  invisible  as  ever.  Look  back,  I  pray  you,  to 
that  whole  knowledge  of  God  which  we  have  acquired  thus  far, 
and  you  will  see  that  it  is  nothing  but  a  knowledge  of  attri- 
butes. Of  the  substance  to  which  these  properties  are  referred, 
we  have  only  learned  that  it  is.  What  it  is,  remains  impene- 
trable to  us.  We  have  named  it  simple  spirit.  But  is  this,  after 
all,  more  than  a  name,  and  the  affirmation  of  an  unknown  fact 
to  our  understandings  ?  For,  when  we  proceed  to  examine  our 
own  conception  of  spirit,  we  find  that  it  is  a  negation  of  mate- 
rial attributes  only.  Our  very  attempts  to  conceive  of  it,  (even 
formed  after  we  have  laid  down  this  as  our  prime  feature  of  it, 
that  it  is  the  antithesis  of  matter,)  in  its  substance,  are  still  ob- 
structed by  an  inabihty  to  get  out  of  a  materialistic  circle  of 
notions.  We  name  it  Ili'zbij.a,  spiritus,  breath ;  as  though  it 
were  only  a  gaseous  and  transparent  form  of  matter ;  and  only 
differed  thus  from  the  solid  and  opaque.  This  obstinate,  materi- 
alistic limit  of  our  conceptions  arises,  I  suppose,  from  the  fact, 
that  conceptions  usually  arise  from  perceptions,  and  these  are 
only  of  sensible,  i.  e.,  of  material  ideas.  This  obstinate  inca- 
pacity of  our  minds  may  be  further  illustrated  by  asking  our- 
selves :  What  is  really  our  conception  of  God's  immensity  ? 
When  we  attempt  the  answer  do  we  not  detect  ourselves  always 
framing  the  notion  of  a  transparent  body  extended  beyond 
assignable  limits  ?  Nothing  more  !  Yet,  reason  compels  us  to 
hold  that  God's  substance  is  not  extended  at  all,  neither  as  a 
vast  solid,  nor  a  measureless  ocean  of  liquid,  nor  an  immense 
volume  of  hydrogen  gas  expanded  beyond  limit.  Extension, 
in  all  these  forms,  is  a  property  wholly  irrelevant  to  spirit. 
Again  :  (and  this  is  most  in  point,)  every  Socinian  objection 
which  has  any  plausibility  in  it,  involves  this  idea  ;  that  a  trinity 
of  Persons  must  involve  a  division  of  God's  substance  into 
llirec  parts.     But  we  know  that  divisibility  is  not  a  property  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1/9 

spirit  at  all — the  idea  is  wholly  irrelevant  to  it,  belonging  only  to 
matter. 

The  Socinian  would  say  here  :  "  Precisely  so  ;  and  hence 
we  reason  against  the  impossibility  of  a 
ria?s^ir^°"'  ^^^  ^^'''^"  trinity  in  unity.  If  divisibility  is  totally  irrele- 
vant to  infinite  Spirit,  then  it  is  indivisible,  and 
so,  can  admit  no  trinity." 

Inspect  this  carefully,  and  you  will  find  that  it  is  merely  a 
verbal  fallacy.  The  Socinian  cheats  himself  with  the  notion 
that  he  knows  something  here,  of  the  divine  substance,  which 
he  does  not  know.  By  indivisible  here,  he  would  have  us  under- 
stand the  mechanical  power  of  utterly  resisting  division,  like 
that  imputed  to  an  atom  of  matter.  But  has  Spirit  this  mate- 
rial property  ?  This  is  still  to  move  in  the  charmed  circle  of 
material  conceptions.  The  true  idea  is,  not  that  the  divine  sub- 
stance is  materially  atomic  ;  but  that  the  whole  idea  of  parts 
and  separation  is  irrelevant  to  its  substance,  in  both  a  negative 
and  affirmative  sense.  To  say  that  Spirit  is  indivisible,  in  that 
material  sense,  is  as  false  as  to  say  that  it  is  divisible.  Thus  the 
stock  argument  of  the  Socinian  against  the  possibility  of  a 
trinity  is  found  to  be  a  fallacy ;  and  it  is  but  another  instance  of 
our  incompetency  to  comprehend  the  real  substance  of  spirit, 
and  of  the  confusion  which  always  attends  our  efforts  to  do  so. 
We  cannot  disprove  here,  by  our  own  reasonings,  any  more 
than  we  can  prove  ;  for  the  subject  is  beyond  our  cognition. 

I  pray  the  student  to  bear  in  mind,  that  I  am  not  here  at- 
tempting to  explain  the  Trinity,  but  just  the  contrary  :  I  am 
endeavoring  to  convince  him  that  it  cannot  be  explained.  (And 
because  it  cannot  be  explained,  it  cannot  be  rationally  rebut- 
ted.) I  would  show  him  that  we  must  reasonably  expect  to 
find  the  doctrine  inexplicable,  and  to  leave  it  so,  I  wish  to  show 
him  that  all  our  difficulties  on  this  doctrine  arise  from  the  vain 
■conceit  that  we  comprehend  something  of  the  subsistence  of 
God's  substance,  when,  in  fact,  we  only  apprehend  something. 
Could  men  be  made  to  see  that  they  comprehend  nothing,  all 
the  supposed  impossibilities  would  vanish  ;  there  would  remain 
a  profound  and  majestic  mystery. 

The  mint  from  which  every  attempted  rationale  of  the 
4.  Rational  Expla-  Trinity  has  come,  was  the  New  Platonic ; 
nation  of  Greek  Scho-  and  the  chief  media  of  their  introduction  to 
^^^^^*^^-  the  Christian  Theology,  Clem.   Alexandrinus 

and  Origen.  Following  the  trinitarian  scheme  which  the  New 
Platonists  attributed  (with  insufficient  grounds)  to  Plato,  of  To 
""fh,  Nohz  and  ^'y/^',  they  usually  represent  God  the  Father  as  the 
intelligent  substance,  intrinsically  and  eternally  active,  the  No~j:, 
as  the  idea  of  self,  generated  from  eternity  by  God's  self-intel- 
lection ;  and  the  P'^y/jy  ^^  the  active  complacency  arising  upon 
it.  The  Platonizing  fathers,  who  called  themselves  orthodox, 
were  not  slow  to  fling  the  charge  oi monarchianism  {Mour^  ■^l'7Ji) 


l80  SYLLAbUS    AND    NOTES 

against  all  Patripassians,  which  I  make  against  the  Arians  also, 
as  reaching  by  diverse  roads,  an  assertion  of  a  single  divine 
person.  The  modern  student  will  be  apt  to  think  that  their 
rationalism  betrays  the  very  same  tendency ;  an  unwillingness 
to  bow  the  intellect  to  the  dense  mystery  of  a  real  and  proper 
three  in  one ;  and  an  attempt  to  evade  it  by  perpetually  de- 
stroying the  personality  of  the  second  and  third  persons. 

This  attempted  explanation  appears  with  new  completeness 
and  fullness,  after  the  Peripatetics  had  modi- 
qmnas.  ^^^  ^■^^  Platonic  S}»stem,  in  the  Latin  Scho- 

lastics. Thomas  Aquinas,  for  instance,  states  the  matter  about 
thus  :  Infinite  activity  of  thought  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
Divine  substance.  But  from  eternity  there  was  but  a  two-fold 
object  of  thought  for  this  intellect  to  act  on — God's  self,  and 
His  decree.  Now,  as  man  is  made  intellectually  in  God's 
image,  we  cannot  conceive  of  God's  thinking,  except  by  con- 
ceiving of  our  own  acts  of  thought  as  the  finite  type  of  which 
His  is  the  infinite  antitype.  Now,  when  man  thinks,  or  con- 
ceives, it  is  only  by  means  of  a  species  of  image  of  that  which 
is  the  object  of  his  thought,  present  before  his  mind.  So,  God's 
very  act  of  thinking  of  Himself  and  His  decree  generates  in  the 
divine  mind,  a  species  of  them ;  it  generates  them  eternally ; 
because  God  is  eternally  and  necessarily  active  in  thinking. 
This  species  or  idea  is  therefore  eternal  as  God,  yet  generated 
by  God,  it  is  of  the  same  essence,  for  it  is  non-corporeal,  spirit- 
ual entity,  and  God's  essence  is  pure  intellection.  It  is  one 
with  God  ;  for  it  is  God's  idea  of  Himself,  and  His  own  eternal 
purpose  which  is  Himself  purposing.  This  is  the  Aoyo^,  the  2d 
Person.  Again,  as  in  our  souls,  so  in  God,  the  presence  of  a 
moral  object  in  conception  awakens  moral  sentiment,  and  of  a 
plan  or  device,  approval  or  disapproval ;  so,  God's  contem- 
plation of  this  idea  of  Himself  and  His  decree,  begets  a  moral 
complacency,  and  a  volition  to  effectuate  (when  the  fullness  of 
time  shall  have  come)  the  decree.  This  complacency  and  voli- 
tion are  the  Spirit,  the  3d  or  practical  Person  of  the  Godhead, 
proceeding  from  the  Father  and  the  Idea,  or  Joyo-. 

This  rationale  we  cannot  but  regard  as  worthless,  though 
.  .  ingenious.     First:  The  Scriptures  inform  us 

jec  ons  01.  .^  advance,    that    God   is   inscrutable  ;    and 

that  we  need  not  expect  to  explain  His  subsistence.  Job 
ii :  7.  Second:  According  to  this  explanation,  both  the  Ndb:^ 
and  the  ^I'^jyr^  would  be  compounded,  the  former  of  the  two 
species  of  God's  being  and  of  His  decree ;  the  latter  of  two 
feelings,  His  moral  self-complacency  and  His  volition  to  ef- 
fectuate His  decree.  Third:  Neither  the  2d  nor  3d  persons 
would  be  substance  at  all,  but  mere  idea  and  feeling,  which 
have  no  entity  whatever,  except  as  affections  of  the  substance 
of  the  Father.  This  seems  to  our  minds  an  objection  so  obvious 
and  conclusive,  that  no  doubt  the  student  is  almost  incredulous 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  l8l 

that  acute  men  should  have  seriously  advanced  a  theory  ob- 
noxious to  it.  The  answer  is,  that  the  Platonic  and  Peripatetic 
metaphysics  ignored,  in  a  manner  astonishing  to  the  modern 
christian  mind,  the  distinction  between  substanc:  and  affections. 
Between  the  two  kinds  of  entity,  they  drew  no  generic  distinc- 
tion. But  is  this  not  one  of  the  very  traits  of  modern,  trans- 
cendental Idealism,  from  Spinoza  down  ?  Foiirth :  On  this 
scheme  of  a- trinity,  I  see  not  how  the  conclusion  could  be 
avoided,  that  every  intelligent  free  agent  is  as  much  a  finite 
trinity  in  unity  as  God  is  an  infinite  one.  Let  us  then  attempt 
no  explanation  where  explanation  is  impossible. 

Having  thus  defined  the  doctrine,  we  proceed  to  its  proof. 
5.  Proof  of  Trini-  That  the  evidence  for  the  Trinity  must  be 
ty  wholly  of  Revela-  wholly  a  matter  of  revelation,  would  appear 
*^""-  sufficiently  from  the  weakness  of  the  attempt 

made  by  the  Scholastics,  to  find  some  proof  or  presumptive 
probability  in  the  light  of  reason.  The  most  plausible  of  these, 
perhaps,  is  that  which  Neander  informs  us,  Raymund  Lulley 
employed  against  the  Unitarian  Moslems  of  Barbary,  which  is 
not  discarded  even  by  the  great  Aquinas  and  the  modern 
Christlieb.  They  say  God  is  immutable  from  eternity.  He 
exists  now  in  a  state  of  active  benevolence.  Hence,  there  must 
have  always  been,  from  eternity,  some  sense  in  which  God  had 
an  object  of  His  benevolence,  in  some  measure  extraneous ; 
else  active  benevolence  would  have  been  impossible  ;  and  the 
result  would  be,  that  the  creation  of  the  angels  (or  earliest  holy 
creatures)  would  have  constituted  an  era  of  change  in  God.  The 
reasoning  appears  unsound  by  this  simple  test.  God  is  now 
actively  righteous  and  punitive,  as  well  as  good  ;  and  a  parallel 
argument  will  prove,  therefore,  with  equal  conclusiveness,  the 
eternity  of  a  devil.  The  solution  of  the  sophism  is  to  be  found 
in  those  remarks  by  which  we  defended  God's  immutability 
against  the  objection,  that  the  creation  of  the  universe  consti- 
tuted a  change  in  God.  It  does  not;  because  God's  purpose 
to  create,  when  His  chosen  time  should  have  come,  was 
unchangeably  present  with  him  from  eternity.  Creation  makes 
the  change  in  the  creature ;  not  in  God.  The  argument  would 
be  more  plausible,  if  left  in  its  undeveloped  form  viz  :  That  an 
eternal  absolute  solitude  was  incompatible  with  absolute  bless- 
edness and  perfection.  Yet  the  answer  is,  that  we  cannot 
know  this  to  be  true  of  any  infinite  essence. 

The  Scripture  evidence  for  a  Trinity  presents  itself  in  two 
forms.  The  most  extensive  and  conclusive 
Proofs?'""^^^""^''^  may  be  called  the  indirect  and  inferential 
proof,  which  consists  in  these  two  facts  when 
collated:  1st,  That  God  is  one.  2d,  That  not  only  the  Father, 
but  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  proper  God.  This  evidence 
presents  itself  very  extensively  over  the  Bible  ;  and  the  two 
propositions  may  be  said  to  be  intertwined  with  its  whole  woof 


152  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

and  warp.  The  other  testimony  is  the  general  direct  testimony, 
where  a  plurahty  in  the  one  God  is  either  stated,  or  involved  in 
some  direct  statement.  The  latter  evidence  is  the  one  we  pre- 
sent now  :  the  former  will  become  evident  as  we  present  the 
proof  of  the  Divinity  of  the  2d  and  3d  Persons. 

The  text-books  assigned  to  the  students,  present  a  collec- 
tion and  discussion  of  those  passages  .so  complete,  that  I  shall 
not  make  an  unnecessary  recapitulation.  I  shall  only  set  down 
a  list  of  those  passages  which  I  consider  relevant;  and  conclude 
with  a  few  cursive  remarks  on  the  argument  in  a  few  points. 
The  student,  then,  may  solidly  advance  the  following  testimon- 
ies, as  cited  and  expounded  by  the  Books. 

From  the  Old  Testament : 

Gen.  i :  2,  with  Ps.  civ :  30 :  Prov.  viii :  22,  &c. 

Gen.  i :  26  :  iii :  22  :  xi :  7 ;  Is.  vi :  8, 

Numb,  vi :  24-26,  may  have  some  feeble  weight  when  col- 
lated with  Is.  vi :  3,  and  2  Cor.  xiii :  14. 

Hosea  i:  7;  Isaiah  Ixiii :  7-14,  and  Ps.  xlv:  6. 

The   argument  from  the  plural  forms  D'^JT^^;   DTl/^-  it 

seems  to  me  ought  to  be  surrendered  after  the  objections  of 
Calvin  and  Buxtorff 

In  the  New  Testament  a  very  clear  argument  arises  from 
the  formula  of  Baptism.  Matt,  xxviii:  19.  The  only  objection 
of  any  plausibility,  is  that  from  i  Cor.  x :  2 — "  Baptized  unto 
Moses."  In  addition  to  the  answers  of  Turrettin,  it  is  surely 
sufficient  to  say,  that  this  is  a  very  different  case  from  that 
where  the  names  of  the  2d.  and  3d.  persons  are  connected  with 
that  of  God  the  Father  in  the  same  sentence  and  same  con- 
struction. 

Another  indisputable  argument  is  derived  from  the 
Apostolic  benediction.  2  Cor.  xiii:  14.  See  also  Rev.  i:  4,  5  : 
I  Cor.  xii :  4-6. 

The  argument  from  the  baptism  of  Christ  seems  to  me  pos- 
sessed of  some  force,  when  the  meaning  of  the  Father's  avowal 
and  of  the  Spirit's  descent  are  understood  in  the  light  of 
Scripture. 

The  much  litigated  passage  in  i  John  v  :  7,  is  certainly  of 
too  doubtful  genuineness  to  be  advanced,  polemically,  against 
the  adversaries  of  the  Trinity :  however,  we  may  believe  that 
the  tenour  of  its  teaching  is  agreeable  to  that  of  the  Scriptures 
elsewhere. 


LECTURE  XVIL 

DIVINITY  OF  CHRIST." 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Prove  that  Christ  is  very  God,  from  what  the  Scriptures  say  of  His  pre-existence. 
Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  28.  Hill,  bk.  iii,  ch.  3  and  4.  Dick,  Lect.  30.  Wat- 
son's Theol.  Inst.,  pt.  ii,  ch.  10. 

2.  What  is  the  doctrhie  of  the  Old  Testament  concerning  the  proper  divinity  of 
the  Messiah?     And  was  He  the  person  revealed  in  the  theophanies? 

Hill's  Div.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  5.  Hengstenberg's  Christologie,  Vol.  i,  ch.  3.  Dick, 
Lect.  31.     Watson,  pt.  ii,  ch.  xi. 

3.  Are  the  divine  names  ascribed  to  Christ  ? 

Turrettin,  as  above.  Hill's  Div.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  7,  g  L  Dick,  Lect.  30,  31. 
Watson,  pt.  ii,  ch.  12. 

4.  Are  the  divine  attributes  given  to  Christ  ? 

Turrettin,  as  above.  Hill,  as  above,  §2.  Dick,  Lect.  31.  Watson,  as  above,  ch.  13. 

5.  Are  the  divine  works  ascribed  to  Christ  ? 
Same  authorities.     Watson,  as  above,  ch.  14. 

6.  Is  divine  worship  in  the  Scriptures  rendered  to  Christ? 

Turrettin,  as  above.  Hill, as  above,  ^  3.  Dick,  Lect.  32.  Watson,  as  above, 
ch.  15.  See  on  the  whole,  Abbadie,  on  the  Trinity.  Wardlaw's  Socinian 
Controversy.  Moses  Stuart  against  Channing.  Evasions  and  objections  to 
be  argued  under  their  appropriate  heads. 

^  I  ^HIS  may  be  called  a    prime  article  of  revealed   theolgy; 

■''     affecting  not  only  the  subsistence  of  the  Godhead,  but  the 

p..       A  t"  1  question    whether    Christ    is    to    be    trusted, 

obeyed  and  worshiped  as  God,  the  nature 
and  efficacy  of  His  atoning  offices,  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  and  all  its  rites.  He  who  believes  in  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  is  a  Christian ;  he  who  does  not,  (whatever  his  pro- 
fession), is  a  mere  Deist.  Without  the  Divinity,  the  Bible  is, 
"  the  drama  of  Hamlet,  with  the  part  of  Hamlet  omitted." 

We  have  already   established   a   Trinity  of  persons  in   the 

Godhead ;  and  this  alone,  if  validly  proved, 
under  five  H^e"ds^^^  ^    would  show  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  For 

where  else  in  Revelation,  than  in  the  persons 
of  Him  and  the  Holy  GJiost,  can  the  other  persons  be  so  natur- 
ally and  plausibly  found?  But  not  to  urge  this:  the  general 
strain  of  the  language  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  pro- 
duces an  overwhelming  impression,  that  they  mean  to  represent 
the  Messiah  as  divine.  Note  the  contrast  between  their 
descriptions  of  Him  and  of  Moses,  the  greatest  of  men  ;  the 
fact  that  Jews  have  almost  uniformly  understood  the  New 
Testament  as  inculcating  it,  and  thus  rejected  it  as  idolatrous; 
the  laborious  evasions  to  which  Socinians  are  obliged  to  resort ; 
and  the  fact  that  the  great  majority  of  both  friends  and  enemies 
have  so  understood  it.  If  the  Apostles  did  not  intend  to  teach 
this  doctrine  they  have  certainly  had  the  remarkable  ill-luck  of 
producing  the  very  impression  which  they  should  have  avoided, 
especially  in  a  Book  intended  to  subvert  idolatry. 

183 


184  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

There  is,  as  has  been  intimated,  a  general  testimony  for 
this  truth,  interwoven  with  the  whole  texture  of  Scripture, 
which  cannot  be  adequatdy  presented  in  a  few  propositions, 
because  of  its  extent.  It  can  only  be  appreciated  by  the 
extended  and  familiar  study  of  the  whole  Bible.  But  the  more 
specific  arguments  for  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  have  usually 
been  digested  into  the  five  heads  :  of  His  Pre-existence,  Names, 
Attributes,  Works  and  Worship.  This  distribution  is  suffi- 
ciently correct.  My  purpose  will  be,  to  employ  the  very  limited 
space  I  can  allot  to  so  extensive  an  argument,  first  in  giving 
you  a  syllabus  of  it,  which  shall  possess  some  degree  of  com- 
pleteness ;  and  second,  in  illustrating  some  of  the  more  important 
testimonies,  so  as  to  exhibit,  in  a  few  instances,  the  manner  in 
which  they  apply,  and  exegetical  evasions  are  to  be  met. 

If  Jesus  Christ  had  an  existence  before  he   w^as  born  of  the 
.  ,  .      virgin,   this  at  once  settles   the  question,  as 

tence  "^  ^  pre-exis-  j^j^  remarks,  that  He  is  not  mere  man.  And  if 
this  pre-existence  was  characterized  by  eter- 
nity, independence,  or  divine  works  of  Creation  and  Providence, 
it  further  settles  the  question  that  He  was  not  a  creature.  The 
theophanies  of  a  second  person  of  the  Godhead,  if  revealed  in  the 
Old  Testament,  (and  if  that  person  can  be  identified  with  Jesus 
Christ),  as  well  as  His  works  of  creation,  if  ascribed  to  Him, 
wnll  be  parts  of  this  argument  for  His  pre-existence,  as  well  as 
fall  under  other  heads. 

But  we  find  a  more  direct  testimony  for  His  pre-existence 
contained  in  a  number  of  passages,  where  Christ  is  said  to  have 
been  "sent"  to  have  "come  from  heaven,"  to  "come  into  the 
world,"  to  be  "made  flesh,"  &c,  &c.  See  John  iii :  31  ;  vi :  38; 
xvi :  28;  xiii  :  3  ;  vi :  62 ;  i  John  iv:  23;  John  i :  14;  Heb.  ii :  7. 
9,  14,  16.  Of  one  of  us,  it  may  be  popularly  said  that  we  came 
into  existence,  came  into  the  world ;  but  those  phrases  could  not 
be  used  with  propriety,  of  "one  who  then  only  began  to  exist. 

Consult  also,  John  i :  1-17,  15,  30;  iii;  I3:viii:58;  xvii 
5  ;  I  Cor.  XV  :  47  ;  2  Cor  viii :  9  :  Heb.  i :  10,  1 1  ;  Rev.  i :  8,  17  ; 
ii :  8  ;  iii :  14, 

John  i :  &c. — In  the  passage,  from  John  i :  1-17,  only  two 
evasions  seem  to  have  a  show  of  plausibility  :  ist,  to  deny  the 
personality  of  the  Anyo^ ;  2d,  to  deny  that  His  pre-existence  is 
taught  in  the  phrase,  iv  dfr/7^.  But  the  first  is  refuted  by  show- 
ing that  the  Anyo:;  is  the  creator  of  all ;  that  in  verse  4,  He  is 
identified  with  the  ^Pwc,  which  (Poj;  again,  verses  6,  7,  was  the 
object  of  John  Baptist's  preparatory  ministry;  which  (/ho::  again 
was  rejected  by  the  world,  verses  10,  11;  and  this  0co:;,  identi- 
cal with  the  Anyo:,  was  incarnate,  (verse  14),  was  testified  unto 
by  John  Baptist,  (verse  15);  and  is  finally  identified,  (verse  17), 
with  Jesus  Christ,  the  giver  of  grace  and  truth.  That  the  phrase 
iv  dnyv^  does  assert  His  pre-existence  is  proved  by  the  resem- 
blance of  it  to  the  Septuagint  rendering  of  Gen.  i:  i.     By  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 85 

author's  use  of  /y^,  instead  of  iyiuszo,  by  His  association  with 
God,  verse  2,  showing  a  pre-existence  similar  to  God's  ;  by  His 
creation  of  all  things,  (verse  3),  and  by  the  utter  folly  of  the 
gloss  which  would  make  the  Evangelist  say  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  in  existence  when  His  ministry  began.  That  John  should 
have  used  the  the  peculiar  philosophic  titles,  Anyo^  and  (/^cbc,  for 
Jesus  Christ,  is  most  reasonably  explained  by  the  state  of  opin- 
ion and  theological  language  when  He  wrote  His  gospel.  The 
Chaldean  Paraphrase,  and  the  Platonizing  tendencies  of  Philo 
and  his  sect,  had  familiarized  the  speculative  Jews  to  these 
terms,  as  expressive  of  the  second  person  ;  and  meantime,  the 
impious  speculations  of  Judazing  Gnostics,  represented  by 
Cerinthus,  had  attempted  to  identify  Jesus  Christ  with  one  of 
the  .hcojiys::  of  their  dreams,  a  sort  of  luminous  emanation  of  the 
divine  intelligence.  It  was  to  vindicate  the  truth  from  this  folly, 
that  St.  John  adopts  the  words  Aoyo::  and  0(oz  in  this  emphatic 
assertion  of  the  Messiah's  proper  divinity.  See  also  i  John  i: 
I ;  Rev.  xix:  13. 

That  the  Messiah  was  to  be  human,  was  so  clearly  revealed 

in  the  Old  Testament,  that  no  Jew  misunder- 
in  OwSmfnL      '    ^tood  it.     He  was  to  be  the  Son  of   David 

according  to  the  flesh.  It  may  seem  some- 
what incompg-tible  with  a  similar  disclosure,  of  His  proper 
divinity,  that  the  Jewish  mind  should  have  been  so  obstinately 
closed  to  that  doctrine.  But  the  evidences  of  it  in  the  Old 
Testament  are  so  strong,  that  we  are  compelled  to  account  for 
the  failure  of  the  unbelieving  Jews  to  embrace  it,  by  the  stub- 
bornness of  prejudice,  and  death  in  sin.  The  Messianic  pre- 
dictions of  the  Old  Testament  have  formed  the  subject  by 
themselves,  of  large  volumes;  I  can,  therefore,  do  little  more 
than  enumerate  the  most  conclusive  of  them  as  to  His  divinity, 
giving  the  preference,  of  course,  to  those  of  them  which  are 
interpreted  of,  and  applied  to,  Jesus  Christ,  by  the  infallible 
exposition  of  the  New  Testament.  Compare,  then,  Num.  xiv : 
22,  and  xxi :  5,  6,  and  Ps.  xcv :  9,  with  i  Cor.  x :  9.  The  tempt- 
ing of  the  Lord  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  described  by  Paul  as 
tempting  Christ ;  in  consequence  of  which  they  were  destroyed 
of  serpents.  Ps.  cii :  26,  ascribes  to  God  an  immutable  eter- 
nity; but  Heb.  I  :  10,  11,  applies  it  to  Jesus  Christ.  In  Is.  vi, 
the  prophet  sees  a  vision  of  Jehovah,  surrounded  with  every 
circumstance  of  divine  majesty.  But  Jno.  xii :  41,  explains: 
"  These  things  said  Esaias,  when  he  saw  His  glor^',  and  spake 
of  Him."  Is.  xlv:  22,  23;  Jehovah  says:  "Look  unto  me, 
and  be  ye  saved,  all  ye  ends  of  the  earth;  but  Rom.  xiv:  11, 
and  I  Cor.  i :  30,  evidently  apply  the  context  to  Jesus  Christ. 
Thus,  also,  compare  Ps.  Ixviii :  18,  with  Eph.  iv:  8,  9;  Joel  ii : 
32,  with  Rom.  x:  13;  Is.  vii :  14,  with  Matt,  i:  22,  23;  Micah. 
v:  2,  with  Matt,  ii :  6,  and  j\Ial.  iii :  i,  with  Mark  i:  2,  and  Luke 
I  :  y6.     The    last   three    pairs    of    references    contain   a   proof 


1 86 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


peculiarly  striking.  In  Is.  vii :  14,  the  child  born  of  a  virgin  is 
to  be  named  'God  with  us.'  In  Matt,  i :  22,  23,  a  child,  Jesus 
Christ,  is  born  of  a  virgin,  and  receives,  by  divine  injunction,, 
through  the  mouth  of  an  angel,  the  name  'God  with  us  ;'  because 
He  was  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  was  to  save  His  peo- 
ple from  theiF  sins.  In  Micah.  v  :  2,  Bethlehem  is  destined  to 
the  honor  of  bringing  forth  the  Ruler  whose  attribute  was 
eternity ;  in  Matt,  ii :  6,  it  is  declared  that  this  prediction  is 
fulfilled  by  the  appearance  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  Mai.  iii :  i,  the 
Angel  of  the  Covenant  is  foretold.  He  is  identified  with  Jesus 
Christ  by  his  forerunner,  John,  who  is  expressly  declared  to  be 
the  person  here  predicted,  by  Luke  i:  76.  But  that  this  Angel 
is  divine,  is  clear  from  his  propriety  in  the  temple  (his  temple) 
which  is  God's  house,  and  from  the  divine  functions  of  Judge 
and  heart-Searcher,  which   He   there   exercises.     In  Ps.  ex :  i, 

David  calls  the  Messiah  "^  jl^  though  his  descendant  accord- 

T  -: 
ing  to  the  flesh.  In  Matt,  xxii :  45,  Christ  Himself  applies  this 
to  the  Messiah  ("What  think  ye  of  Christ?  Whose  Son  is 
He?")  and  challenges  them  (in  substance)  to  account  for  it 
without  granting  His  divinity.  And  this  iioth  Psalm,  then 
proceeds  to  ascribe  to  this  Being  eternity  of  priesthood,  (v.  4,) 
as  expounded  in  Heb.  vii:  3,  as  having  "neither  beginning  of 
days,  nor  end  of  life,"  supreme  authority,  and  judgment  over 
mankind.  The  Ps.  ii,  describes  God  as  setting  His  King  upon 
His  holy  hill  of  Zion  :  who  is  declared  to  be  His  eternal  Son,  (v. 
7,)  the  Ruler  of  the  whole  earth,  (v.  8,)  the  sovereign  avenger  of 
His  opponents,  (v.  9,)  and  the  appointed  object  of  religious 
trust.  Surely  these  are  divine  attributes.  Compare  Jer.  xvii : 
5.  But  Acts  iv:  25-28,  attribute  the  whole  prediction  to  Jesus 
Christ.     So  Ps.  xlv:  6,  calls  th:  king  God,  D'm'T'^^  and  attributes 

to  Him  an  everlasting  throne.  But  Heb.  i :  8,  applies  these 
words  to  the  Son,  afterwards  defined  to  be  Jesus  Christ.  So 
let  the  student  compare  for  himself,  (for  time  will  fail  me  to  go 
into  explanation  of  every  text,)  Zech.  xii :  10,  with  John  xix: 
ly,  Is.  Ixi :  I  ;  (Speaker  calls  Himself  I,  the  Lord,  v.  8,)  with 
Luke  iv:  18-21.  Examine,  also,  Is.  iv  :  2  ;  ix:  5,  6,  7;  xi :  4, 
10;  Ps.  Ixxii:  17,  5;  Dan.  vii:  13,  14.  Zech.  chap,  xiii  :  7, 
compared  with  xi :  13;  xii:  10;  Jer.  xxiii :  5,  6.  Ps.  xcvii :  7, 
witli  Heb.  i :  6. 

But  a  second  important  class  of  Old  Testament  evidences 
Argument  from  the  fo^  the  divinity  of  Christ,  will  appear  when 
theophanies  and  An-  we  inquire  who  was  the  Person  who  appeared 
in  the  theophanies  granted  to  the  Patriarchs. 
A  personal  distinction  by  which  God  the  Father  might  disclose 
Hnnself  to  man  in  another  person  than  His  own,  seems  to  be 
indicated  by  His  nature.  He  is  called  the  invisible  God.  i 
Tim.  i:  17;  Heb.  xi :  27.  It  is  declared  that  no  man  can  see 
Him  and  live.     Exod.  xxxiii :  20  ;  and  we  read,  in  the  cases  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 8/ 

some  of  the  theophanies,  that  the  persons  favoured  with  them 
were  amazed  at  their  surviving  the  fearful  privilege.  Gen. 
xxxii:  30;  Judges  vi :  22,  23.  But  besides  this  concealed 
Person,  who,  though  everywhere  present,  rarely  makes  Himself 
cognizable,  and  never  visible  to  mortals,  the  New  Testament, 
especially,  informs  us  of  another  Person,  the  same  in  essence, 
whose  office  it  has  ever  been,  since  God  had  a  Church,  to  act 
as  the  mediating  Messenger  and  Teacher  of  that  Church,  and 
bring  man  into  providential  and  gracious  relations  with  the 
inaccessible  God.  This  function  Christ  has  performed,  both 
before  and  since  His  incarnation ;  and  thus  He  is  the  Word, 
the  Light,  the  visible  Image  to  man  of  the  invisible  Godhead. 
See  Jno.  xiv  :  8,  9 ;  i :  18;  i  Jno.  1:1,2;  2  Cor,  iv :  4 ;  Heb.  1:3. 
Yet  this  distinction  cannot  be  pushed  so  far  as  though  the 
Father  never  communicates  with  men,  as  the  ist  person.  Some 
of  the  very  places  cited  to  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  show 
the  Father  as  such,  testifying  to  the  Son.  Ps.  ii,  and  ex.  And 
in  E.Kod.  xxiii :  20 ;  xxxii :  34,  language  is  used  by  a  person, 
concerning  another  person,  under  the  title  of  angel,  which  can- 
not possibly  be  identified  as  a  single  person,  yet  both  are 
divine.  It  would  be  a  great  error,  therefore,  and  would  throw 
this  whole  argument  into  confusion,  to  exclude  Jehovah  the 
Father  wholly  from  these  communications  to  Old  Testament 
saints,  and  attribute  all  the  messages  to  the  Son  immediately. 
It  so  happens  that  Moses  received  these  theophanies,  in  which 
we  are  compelled  to  admit  the  personal  presence  of  the  ist 
person  per  se,  as  well  as  the  2d.  May  not  this  be  the  explana- 
tion, that  He  was  honoured  to  be  the  Mzaiv/^z  of  the  Old  Test- 
ament Church,  in  a  sense  in  which  no  other  mere  man  ever 
was :  in  that  He  communicated  directly  with  the  person  of  the 
Father:  Exod.  xxxiii :  11  ;  Numb,  xii :  6-8  ;  Deut.  xxxiv :  10. 
Did  not  Jehovah  Christ  speak  face  to  face  to  Jacob,  >\braham, 
Manoah,  &c.  ? 

Another   seeming   difficulty   presents   itself  (said    to   have 

been  urged  with  confidence  by  St.  Augustine 

Augustine's  difficulty.  ^^^  ^^j^^^.  Fathers)  from  Heb.  i:  i,  2,  and  ii : 

2,  3.  The  Apostle,  it  is  urged,  seems  here  to  teach,  that  the 
Old  Testament  was  distinguished  from  the  New,  by  being  not 
communicated  through  God,  (the  Son,)  but  through  creatures, 
as  agents.  I  answer,  if  the  texts  be  strained  into  this  meaning, 
they  will  then  contradict  the  context.  For  the  theophanies 
and  other  immediate  divine  communications  must  be  imputed 
to  a  divine  person,  the  Father,  if  not  the  Son ;  and  then  there 
would  be  no  basis,  on  their  premises,  for  the  Apostle's  argu- 
ment, that  the  New  Testament  was  more  authoritative,  because 
the  teaching  of  a  divine  minister.  The  truth  is,  that  the  Apos- 
tle's contrast  is  only  this :  In  the  Old  Testament,  the  Messiah 
did  not  appear  as  an  incarnate  prophet,  ministering  His  own 
message    ordinarily    and    publickly    among    the    people.     (His 


1 88  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

theophanic  teachings  were  usually  private  to  some  one  human 
agent.)     In  the  New  Testament,   He  did.     Nor  can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  The  Angel  of  Jehovah,  who  presented  these  theoph- 
anies,   is   explained  by  the  o:  ayyi'/MV  of  Heb.  ii :  2.     He  was 
wholly  a  different  Being;  their  ministry  was  only 'attendant,  and 
co-operative^  at  Sinai.    (See  Stephen,  Acts  vii :  53  ;  Ps.  Ixviii :  17.) 
The  2d   person   seems   to   be   identified    in    the    following 
places :   Gen.  xvi :  7,    the  Angel   of  Jehovah 
Jnstances  of  theoph-    ^^^^^  Hagar  — V.  lo,   He  promises  to  exert 
divine  power — v.  ii,  claims  to  have  heard  her 
distress;  and  v.  13,  Hagar  is   surprised   that  she   survives   the 
Divine  vision.     Gen.  xviii,  three  men  visit  Abraham  identified, 
xix :  I,  as  angels.     The  chief  angel  of  these  three,  in  xviii:  i, 

14,  17,  &c.,  makes  Himself  known  as  Jehovah,  receives  Abra- 
ham's worship,  &c.  And  in  Gen.  xlviii :  15,  16,  this  Jehovah  is 
called  by  Jacob,  "  the  Angel  which  redeemed  me  from  all  evil," 
&c.,  and  invoked  to  bless  Joseph's  sons,  a  divine  function. 
Again,  in  Gen.  xxi :  17,  The  Angel  of  God  speaks  to  Hagar, 
promising  her,  v.  18,  a  divine  exertion  of  power.     In  Gen.  xxii: 

I.  D'nl^^^  commands  Abraham  to  take  his  son  Isaac  and  sac- 

Vl 

rifice  him.  v.  ii,  when  in  the  act  of  doing  it,  the  Angel  of 
Jehovah  arrests,  and  says,  v.  13,  "Thou  hast  not  withheld  thy 
son  from  me;"  and,  v.  14,  Abraham  names  the  place  Jehovah 
jireh.  In  Gen.  xxxi :  11,  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  appears  to 
Jacob  in  a  dream,  identified  in  v.  13,  with  God,  the  God  of  Gen. 
xxviii:  11-22,  the  God  of  Bethel  then  declared  Jehovah.  In 
Gen.  xxxii :  25,  Jacob  wrestles  with  an  angel,  seeks  his  bless- 
ing, and  names  the  place,  v.  30,  Peniel.  This  Angel  is  in  the 
narrative  called  E^lohim,  and  Hosea  xxii :  4-6,  describing  the 
same  transaction,  Elohim,  Angel  and  Jehovah  of  Hosts.  In 
the  same  method  compare  Exod.  iii :  2,  with  vs.  4,  6,  14-16; 
Exod.  xiv:  19,  with  v.  24;  Exod.  xxih :  20,  with  subsequent 
verse  ;  Exod.  xxxii  :  34  ;V  :  13  to  vi :  2,  with  xxxiii :  3,  4,  14,  15  ; 
Numb,  xxii :  22,  with  vs.  32-35  ;  Josh.  v.  13,  to  vi :  2  ;  Judges  ii : 
1-4.  Compare  Judges  vi  :  11,  with  vs.  14,  15,  18,  21,  22,  &c. 
Judges  xiii:  3,  with  vs.    21,  22.     And  Is.  Ixiii  :  9;   Zech.  i  :  12- 

15,  compare  vi :  15.  Compare  Zech.  iii :  2,  with  v.  i  ;  Ps.  xxxiv: 
7;  xxxv  :  5. 

Now,  the  amount   of  what  has   been  proved  in  these  cita- 

„      ,    .  tions   is,  that    two  Persons,  both  having  un- 

Conclusions.  ,•         ,  ,       1.    .  .1  .  ?• 

questionable  divme  attributes,  yet  sometimes 

employing  the  incommunicable  name  in  common,  appear  on  the 
stage.  They  are  distinguished  by  unquestioned  personal  dis- 
tinctions of   willing,   acting,  feeling.      One   is  the  Sender,   the 

other  is  the  Sent.  (71^57^)  The  one  usually  acts  with  a  cer- 
tain reserve  and  invisibility,  the  other  is  called  the  "Angel  of 
His    countenance."     Is.  Ixiii  :  9.     Compare    with   Col.   1:1$; 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  189' 

Heb.  i :  3.  To  this  latter  the  phrase,  Angel  of  Jehovah  is  so 
often  applied,  that  it  becomes  at  length  a  proper  name.  And 
the  completing  link  of  the  evidence  is  given  by  Mai.  iii:  1-3, 
and  Isaiah  xl :  3.  The  forerunner  is  predicted  in  the  latter  of 
these  places,  as  a  "  voice  of  him  that  crieth  in  the  wilderness,, 
prepare  ye  the  way  of  Jehovah,"  &c.  Malachi  teaches  that  a 
forerunner  was  to  precede,  when  the  Lord  whom  the  Jews  were 
expecting,  even  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  would  suddenly 
come  to  His  temple.  And  this  Being  is  clearly  shown  to  be 
divine,  by  his  proprietorship  in  the  temple,  and  the  sovereign 
judicial  functions  he  would  perform  there.  But  now,  when  we 
look  into  the  New  Testament,  we  find,  that  the  forerunner  was 
John  the  Baptist,  and  the  person  introduced  was  our  Lord  Jesus- 
Christ.  See  Matt,  ii  :  lo;  Mark  1:2:  Luke  i  :  76,  and  vii: 
27.  Jesus  Christ  was,  therefore,  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant, 
the  owner  of  the  Temple,  the  Jehovah  of  Isaiah,  xl :  3,  5,  whose 
glory  John  was  to  usher  in.  Thus,  these  theophanies  not  only 
disclose  a  personal  distinction  in  the  Godhead,  but  show  the 
pre-existence  and  divinity  of  Christ. 

For  objections  and  theories  of  evasion,  see  Hengstenberg. 

The  argument  from  the  application  of  the  divine  names  to 
Jesus  Christ  has  been  in  part  anticipated 
given  to^Christ  ^  '^°^  ^nde^  ^l^e  last  head.  To  comprehend  its  full 
force,  the  student  must  recall  the  evidences 
by  which  we  showed  that  Jehovah,  especially,  was  God's  in- 
communicable name.  -  But  in  the  New  Testament  this  is  not 
characteristically  rendered,  except  by  Kupcoc,  which  stands  also 
for  Adonai,  and  Adoni,  (the  latter  applied  to  human  masters). 
Hence,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  Socinian  evasion  will  be 
more  damaging  to  all  the  argument  from  the  cases  in  which  the 
New  Testament  applies  the  terms  Aufjcu:;  6eu^  to  Jesus  Christ. 
That  evasion,  as  you  know,  is,  that  the  titles,  God,  Lord,  are 
applied  in  Bible  language  to  Magnates,  Magistrates,  and  Angels  ; 
and,  therefore,  their  application  to  Jesus  Christ  proves  not  His- 
proper  divinity,  but  only  His  dignity.  But  let  it  be  borne  in 
mind,  that  if  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  is  deficient  in 
the  power  of  distinguishing  the  communicable  from  the  incom- 
municable titles  of  God,  it  also  lacks  the  usage  of  applying  His- 
titles  to  exalted  creatures.  There  is  no  example  of  such  a  thing 
in  the  New  Testament,  except  those  quoted  from  the  Septua- 
gint.  Hence,  when  the  New  Testament  calls  Christ  Lord  and 
God,  the  conclusion  is  fair,  that  it  attributes  to  Him  proper 
divinity. 

But  we   argue,  first,  He   is  also   called  God's  Son  ;  and  to- 
show  that  this  means  more  than  when  Angels, 
Church-members,  &c.,  are  called  sons  of  God, 
He  is  called  the  beloved  Son — God's  own  Son — God's  only-be- 
gotten  Son.     See   Ps.  ii :  7 ;  Matt,   iii:   17;  xvii :   5;   Dan.   iii:: 
25;   Matt,   iv :    3;  xxvi :  6^;  xxvii :  43,  54;  Luke  i :   35  ;  Jno. 


190  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

iii :  18  ;  x  :  36;  ix  :  35  to  37;  Rev.  ii:  18  ;  of  v.  8.  Here  He  is 
called  Son,  because  He  can  work  miracles,  because  begotten  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  His  title  of  Son  is  conceived  by  His  enemies 
as  a  claim  of  proper  divinity,  which  He  dies  rather  than  repudi- 
ate. The  attempts  to  evade  the  force  of  the  title  Only-begotten 
seem  peculiarly  impotent.  One  is,  that  He  is  so  called,  although 
only  a  man,  because  conceived,  without  natural  father,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Adam  was  still  more  so,  having  had  neither  natural 
father  nor  mother.  Yet  he  is  never  called  only-begotten.  An- 
other is,  that  Christ  is  Son,  because  of  His  commission  and  in- 
spiration. In  this  sense,  Moses,  Elijah,  &c.,  were  generically  the 
same.  But  see  Heb.  iii :  1-6.  The  third  is,  that  He  is  called 
God's  only-begotten  Son,  because  He  enjoyed  the  privilege  of 
a  resurrection.  But  the  dead  man  of  2  Kings  xiii :  21,  the  son 
of  the  Shunemite,  and  the  saints  who  arose  when  Christ  died, 
enjoyed  the  privilege  earlier;  and  Enoch  and  Elijah  enjoyed  one 
still  more  glorious,  a  translation. 

For  the  arguments  which  rebut  the  Socinian  evasions  on 
this  head,  the  student  must,  for  the  rest,  be  referred  to  text 
Books  and  Comments.  The  following  proof-texts  will  be  found 
justly  applicable : 

Jno.  i:  I,  2;  x:  30;  xx  :  31;  Acts  xx:  28;  (somewhat 
doubtful,)  Rom.  ix  :  5  ;  i  Tim.  iii:  16;  Phil,  ii :  6 ;  Heb.  i:  8; 
I  Jno.  V  :  20. 

By  the  application  of  a  principle  of  criticism  asserted  by 
Dr.  Granville  Sharpe  and  Dr.  Wordsworth, 
Middkton.  ^  ^  "^^  of  the  English  Church,  and  afterwards  sub- 
jected to  a  most  searching  test,  by  Dr.  Mid- 
dleton  on  the  Greek  Article,  this  list  of  divine  names  applied  to 
Jesus  Christ,  may  be  much  enlarged.  Dr.  Middleton  thus  states 
it:  "  When  two  or  more  attributives  (i.e.,  adjectives,  participles, 
descriptive  substantives)  joined  by  a  copulative  or  copulatives, 
are  assumed  of  the  same  person  or  thing,  before  the  first  at- 
tributive, the  article  is  inserted,  before  the  remaining  ones  omit- 
ted :  e.  g.,  Plutarch  :  I'oa/.toz^  b  unK  /.at  y.h^(tdvojioz,  too  tsHuy^xotoc, 
where  vwc  and  -/.h^ow^oiw::  describe  the  one  person  Roscius. 
(Proper  nouns,  abstract  nouns,  and  simple  names  of  substances 
without  descriptive  connotation,  are  exempted  from  this  rule). 
Its  correctness  is  sustained  by  its  consistent  rationale,  founded 
on  the  nature  of  the  Article,  by  a  multitude  of  classical  examples, 
and  by  the  manner  in  which  the  Greek  Fathers  uniformly  cite 
the  passages  in  question  from  the  New  Testament.  They  are 
to  be  presumed  to  be  best  acquainted  with  their  own  idiom.  For 
instance,  Eph.  v  :  5,  we  have  iv  ry^  [■io.adzio  mb  Xocaroh  yji'i  Seou. 
Instead  of  rendering  "  Kingdom  of  Christ  and  of  God,"  we 
should  read,  Kingdom  of  Him  who  is  Christ  and  God.  In  Titus 
ii  :  13,  Tou  f/eyd/.oo  8eo~j  /m.'c  I'oj-vjfio^  /jfwji^  'Jj^mrj  Xycarob^  is  ren- 
dered "of  the  great  God  and  (of)  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 
It  should  be  "of  our  great  God  and  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ." 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  I9I 

Winer,  (Gram.  N.  T.  Greek.  Article  §  19,  5,)  impugns  this 
conclusion,  as  countenanced  by  Tholuck  and  other  eminent 
Germans.  His  grounds  are,  that  in  Titus  ii :  1 3  ^cor/jiw:;  is  suf- 
ficiently defined  by  the  possessive  genitive  'j/Mov,  so  that, 
although  anarthrous,  it  may  stand  for  a  separate  object;  and 
second,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  Paul's  doctrinal  system  to 
call  Christ  the  "  great  God."  To  the  last  point  we  reply,  that 
it  is  not  a  grammatical  one,  (as  Winer  admits)  ;  but  a  doctrinal 
hypothesis:  and  an  erroneous  one.  Witness  Rom.  ix:  5.  To 
advance  such  a  surmise  in  exegesis  of  Paul  is  begging  the  ques- 
tion. The  emptiness  of  the  first  ground  is  shown  by  a  com- 
parison of  2  Pet..  1:1.  There,  when  the  writer  would  separate 
Christ  from  the  Father  as  an  object  of  thought,  he  uses  not  only 
the  genitive,  but  the  article :  iv  i-cyvcoaec  rob  deou  /.at  Iqaob  rou 
xupco'j  jfj.(o)^.     Compare  also,  Jude  4th,  end. 

The  names  of  God  may  not  be  incommunicable,  and  the 
application  of  them  might  possibly  be  am- 
4.  Attributes.  biguous  therefore  ;  but  when  we   see  the  in- 

communicable attributes  of  God  given  to  Jesus  Christ,  they 
compose  a  more  irresistible  proof  that  He  is  very  God.  This 
is  especially  strong  when  those  qualities  which  God  reserves 
to  Himself  alone,  are  ascribed  to  Jesus  Christ.     We  find,  then  : 

Eternity  clearly  ascribed  to  Christ  in  Ps.  cii :  26,  as  inter- 
preted in  Heb.  i:  11,  12;  Prov.  viii:  23,  &c.  Is.  ix:  6;  Micah 
v  :  2  ;  Jno.  i :  2  ;  i  Jno.  i :  2  ;  Rev.  i :  7,  8,  17  ;  iii :  14  ;  xxii :  13  ; 
and  the  last  three  employ  the  very  phraseology  in  which  God 
asserts  His  eternity  in  Is.  xiii :   IQ,  and  xliv  :  6. 

Immutability,  the  kindred  attribute,  and  necessary  corol- 
lary of  eternity.     Ps.  cii :  26,  as  before  ;   Heb.  xiii :   8. 

Immensity  and  omnipresence.  Matt,  xviii :  20 ;  xxviii : 
20;  Jno.  iii :   13  :  Col.  i :   17. 

Omniscience.  Mark  xi :  27;  Jno.  ii :  24,  25;  Heb.  iv  :  12, 
13;  Luke  vi ;  8  ;  Jno.  xvi ;  30;  xxi :  17;  Rev.  ii :  23,  com- 
pared with  I  Kings  viii :  39;  Jer.  xvii :  10.  Here  Christ  knows 
the  most  inscrutable  of  all  Beings,  God  Himself;  and  the  human 
heart,  which  God  claims  it  as  His  peculiar  power  to  fathom. 

Sovereignty  and  power.  Jno.  v :  17;  Matt,  xxviii:  18, 
Heb.  i :  3  ;  Rev.  i :  8  ;  xi :  1 5-17.  And,  in  fine,  see  Col.  ii :  9 ; 
i :  19.  The  last  subdivision  will  suggest  the  next  head  of  argu- 
ment, that  from  His  divine  works.  But  upon  the  whole,  it  may 
be  remarked  that  these  ascriptions  of  divine  attributes  to  Christ 
leave  no  evasion.  For  it  is  in  the  nature  of  things  simply 
impossible  that  a  finite  nature  should  receive  infinite  endow- 
ments. Even  Omnipotence  cannot  make  a  part  to  contain  the 
whole. 

Divine  works  are  ascribed  to  Christ.  Hill,  with  an  affec- 
tation of  philosophic  fairness,  which  he  some- 
^'      "'^  ^'  times  carries  to  an  unnecessary  length,  seems 

to  yield  the   point  to  the    Arians,  in    part :    that  as  God  has 


192  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

endued  His  different  orders  of  creatures  with  degrees  of  power 
so  exceedingly  various,  He  may  have  given  to  this  exalted 
creature  powers  which,  to  man,  appear  actually  boundless  ;  and 
that  even  the  proposition,  that  God  might  enable  him  to  create 
a  world,  by  filling  him  with  His  mighty  power,  does  not  appear 
necessarily  absurd.  But  it  seems  clear,  that  there  is  a  limit 
plain  and  distinct  between  those  things  which  finite  and  depend- 
ent power  can,  by  a  vast  extension,  be  enabled  to  do  :  and  those 
for  which  all  measures  of  created  power  are  alike  incompetent. 
There  are  many  things  which  are  superhuman,  which  perhaps 
are  not  superangelic.  Satan  may  perhaps  have  power  to  move 
an  atmospheric  storm,  before  which  man  and  his  mightiest  works 
would  be  as  stubble.  But  Satan  is  as  unable  to  create  a  fly  out 
of  nothing,  as  is  man.  For  the  performance  of  this  kind  of 
works,  by  deputation,  no  increase  of  finite  power  can  prepare  a 
creature.  Moreover,  to  create  a  world  such  as  ours,  to  direct  it 
by  a  controlling  providence,  to  judge  its  rational  inhabitants,  so 
as  to  apportion  to  every  man  according  to  his  works  ;  all  this 
implies  the  possession  of  omnipresence,  infinite  knowledge, 
memory,  and  attention,  as  impossible  for  a  creature  to  exercise, 
as  infinite  power.  But,  however,  this  may  be,  Scripture  always 
ascribes  creation  to  God  as  a  divine  work.  This  is  done,  first, 
in  many  express  passages,  as  Jer.  X  :  10-12:  Ps.  xcv  :  civ;  Rev. 
iv  :  10,  II  ;  and  second,  by  all  those  passages,  as  Ps.  xix :  1-7, 
in  which  we  are  directed  to  read  the  greatness  and  character  of 
God  in  the  works  of  creation.  If  He  used  some  other  rational 
agent  in  the  work,  why  is  Creator  so  emphatically  His  title  ? 
And  why  are  we  so  often  referred  to  His  works  to  learn  His 
attributes  ?  And  once  more,  the  most  noted  passages,  as  Jno. 
i :  1-3,  in  which  creation  is  ascribed  to  the  Son,  contain  most 
emphatic  assertions  of  His  partaking  of  the  divine  essence  ;  so 
that  it  is  plain  the  divinity  of  the  work  was  in  the  writer's  mind. 

The  space  allotted  to  this  argument  will  forbid  my  going 
into  the  Socinian  evasions  of  the  several  texts,  tortuous  and 
varied  as  they  are.  The  most  important  of  them  may  be 
seen  handled  with  great  skill  by  Dr.  Hill,  Bk.  iii,  ch.  3  and  4. 
But  we  clearly  find  the  following  divine  works  ascribed  to  Jesus 
Christ : 

Creation  of  the  world.  Prov.  viii :  23,  2J,  &c.;  Jno.  i :  1-3  ; 
Col.  i:  15-17;  Heb.  i:  i,  3,  10.  And  along  with  this,  may  be 
mentioned  his  sustentation  of  all  things,  asserted  in  the  same 
passages. 

Miracles,  performed,  not  by  deputed,  but  by  autocratic 
power.  Jno.  v;  21;  vi :  40;  Acts  iv  :  7,  10 ;  ix :  34;  cf.  Jno. 
v:   36;   Markii:  8-1 1.     Jno.  ii :    19;  x:    18:   Rom.  i :  4. 

Forgiving  sin.     Mark  ii  :    10. 

Judging  men  and  angels.  Matt,  xxv ;  31,  32;  2  Cor.  v: 
10;  Rom.  xiv:  10 ;  Acts  xvii :  31;  Jno.  v:  22.  True,  it  is  said 
that  the  Twelve  shall  sit  on  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 93 

tribes  of  Israel:  Matt,  xiv:  28,  and  that  the  saints  shall  judge 
angels  ;  but  other  Scriptures  explain  this,  that  they  shall  be 
merely  assessors  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Last.     The  peculiar  worship  of  God  is  given  to  Christ.   See 

Matt,  xxviii :    19;   Luke    xxiv :    52;  Jno.   v: 

orsiip.  2^  .  Acts  vii :   59,  60;  Jno.   xiv:    i;  and  Ps. 

12,   compared  with   Jer.   xvii :   5;    Acts   x:   25,    26;    i    Cor.  i  : 

Phil,  ii :    10  ;   Heb,   i :.  6  ;   Rev.  i :   5,6;  vii :    10 ;  v  :    13. 

In  connection,  weigh  these  passages,  as  showing  how 
unlikely  the  Scripture  would  be  to  permit  such  worship,  (or 
Christ  Himself,)  if  He  were  not  proper  God.  \s.  xlii :  8  ;  Matt, 
iv:  16;  or  Luke  iv  :  8;  Mark  xii :  29;  Acts  xiv  :  14,  15;  Rev. 
xix  :  10;  xxii :  9.  Remember  that  the  great  object  of  Scrip- 
ture is  to  reclaim  the  world  from  idolatry. 

The  Arian  and  Socinian  evasions  are  well  stated  and  refuted 
by  Hill,  Bk.  iii,  ch.  7,  §  3. 


LECrURE  XVIII. 

DIVINITY  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST,  AND  OF  THE  SON. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Socinians,  the  Arians  and  the  Orthodox  concern- 
ing the  Holy  Ghost?     See 

See  Hagenback,  Hist,  of  Doctr.  on  Arianism.     Hill,  bk.  iii,  ch.  9.     Turrettin, 
Log.  iii,  Qu,  30.     Dr.  Wm.  Cunninghnm,  Hist.  Theol.  ch.  9,  ^  4. 

2.  Prove  the  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  30,  |  i-ii.     Owen  on  the  Holy  Ghost,  bk.  i,  ch's  2,  3. 
Dick,   Lect.  ;^;^.     Hill,  as   above.     Dwight's   Theol.    Sermon  70th.     Knapp^ 

?  39- 

3.  Prove  from  the  Scriptures  the  Divinity  of  this  Person. 

Turrettin,   Loc.  iii,   Qu.   30,   §   12,   end.     Dick,  Hill  and  Dwight   as   above. 
Knapp,  ^  40. 

4.  State  the  controversy  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  on  the  Proces- 
sion of  the  Holy  Ghost.     Which  party  is  right?     Why? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  31.     Dick  and  Hill  as  above. 

5.  Show  how  the  offices  of  the  2nd  and  3d  Persons  in  redemption  imply  the 
possession  of  proper  divinity  by  them. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  24;  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  3.     Dick,  Lect.  32.     Hill,  bk.  ii,  ch. 
8,  end.     Anselm,  Cur  Deus  Homo  ? 

'  I  '*HE     Arian    controversy    was    so    fiercely     agitated    con- 
"^     cerning  the  divinity  of  the   2d.  Person  that  the   3d.    Per- 
son was    almost    overlooked  in    it,    by   both 
trine  S'HJyGW?"    Parties.       It   is  stated  that    Arius    held    the 
Holy  Ghost  to  be  a   person — but    a  creature 
— the  first  creature  namely,  which  the  Son    brought   into  exist- 
ence by  the  Father's  instruction,  after  His   own   creation.     He 
was  thus,  y-laaa  y-caim-(K.     On  the  other  hand,  few,  perhaps,  of 
the  orthodox,  except  Athanasius,  saw  clearly  the  necessit}^  of 
extending  to  Him  likewise  the  same  essence,  {bfwooatov,)  with  the 
13* 


194  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Father;  and  attributing  to  Him  in  the  work  of  Redemption, 
proper,  divine  attributes.  The  most  of  them,  e.  g.,  a  great  anti- 
Arian  writer,  Hilary  of  Aries,  contented  themselves  with  saying 
that  He  was  a  Person,  and  was  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures  as  a 
divine  Spirit,  and  God's  beneficent  Agent  in  sanctification  ;  but, 
farther  than  this,  the  Scriptures  did  not  bear  Him  out.  A  little 
after  the  middle  of  the  4th  century,  Macedonius,  primate  of 
Constantinople,  was  led,  by  his  semi-Arian  views,  to  teach  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  but  a  name  for  the  divine  power  and 
influences,  diffused  from  the  Father  through  the  Son.  It  was 
this  error,  along  with  others,  occasioned  the  revisal  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  by  the  second  CEcumenical  Council,  that  of  Con- 
stantinople. Yet  even  this,  while  attributing  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
a  procession  from  the  Father,  and  the  same  worship  and  glory 
attributed  to  the  Father  and  Son,  and  while  calling  Him  Life- 
giving  Lord,  still  did  not  expressly  ascribe  to  Him  the  phrase 
oi).oo'jaio-j  zuj  naTjii.  The  consubstantial  divinity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  however,  continued  to  be  the  practical  doctrine  of  the 
Church  Catholic.  When  the  Socinians,  in  the  i6th  century, 
sought  to  overthrow  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  they  repre- 
sented all  that  is  said  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  mere  parallel 
locutions  for  the  Godhead  itself,  or  as  impersonations  of  the 
power,  energy,  wisdom,  or  general  influence  of  the  Godhead  on 
created  souls.  The  words  Holy  Ghost,  then,  are,  with  them,  the 
name,  not  of  a  Person,  but  of  an  abstraction. 

Hence,  the  first  task  which  we  should  assume,  is  to  learn 

jT-     p  .„      Y        what    the    Scriptures    teach   concerning   the 

personality  of  this  Being.     We  may  premise, 

with  Dick,  that  it  is  natural  and  reasonable  that  the  Scriptures 

would  say   less  to   evince  the   personality   and  divinity   of  the 

•Holy  Ghost  than  of  the  Son  ;  because  in  the  order  of  the  divine 

manifestation  in  Redemption,  the  Son  is  naturally  and  properl)' 

revealed    first.       The    purchase    precedes    the    application    of 

Redemption.    But  after  a  plurality  in  unity  was  once  established, 

it  was  easy  to  admit  a  trinity. 

Now,  we  may  freely  admit  that  in  several  places,  repre- 
sented by  Ps.  cxxxix :  7,  the  word  Spirit  is  a  mere  parallelism  to 
express  God's  self.  We  may  freely  admit  that  were  there  no 
passages,  except  those  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  be 
be  shed  forth,  as  in  Is.  xxxii :  15,  it  would  not  be  proved  that  it 
might  not  mean  only  God's  influences.  But  there  are  many 
others  which  admit  of  no  such  explanation,  (a)  A  number  of 
personal  acts  are  attributed  to  the  Holy  Ghost, as  creation.  Gen. 
i :  2  ;  Ps.  civ :  30,  the  generation  of  Christ's  body  and  soul. 
Matt,  i :  18  ;  Luke  i  :  35.  Teaching  and  revealing.  John  xiv  : 
26  ;  XV  :  25,  26  ;  Gal.  iv  :  6  ;  Rom.  viii :  16  ;  I  Tim.  iv  :  i  ;  i  Pet. 
i :  1 1  ;  2  Peter  i  :  21  ;  Is.  xi :  2,  3.     To  search  the  decree  of  God, 

1  Cor  ii :  10.     To  set  apart  to  the  ministry,  Is.  Ixi  :  i  ;  Acts  xiii; 

2  :  XX  :  28.     To  intercede(-<'/'/fm/^r(c)  John  xvi :  7  ;  Rom.  viii :  27. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  1 95 

To  have  volitions,  i  Cor.  xii :  11.  To  regenerate  and  sanctify, 
John  iii :  6;  2  Cor.  iii :  6  ;  Eph.  ii:  22,  &c.  Add  here,  as  show- 
ing the  personal  agencies  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  Luke  xii:  12; 
Acts  V  :  32  :  XV  :  28  ;  xvi :  6  ;  xxviii  :  25  ;  Rom.  xv  :  16  ;  i  Cor. 
ii :  13  ;  Heb.  ii :  4;  iii :  7. 

(b)  The  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  exercise  the  active  feelings 
of  a  person  ;  to  be  tempted.  Acts  v:  9  ;  to  be  vexed,  Is.  Ixiii : 
10  ;  to  be  grieved,  Eph.  iv  :  30. 

But  here  we  must  meet  the  well  known  evasion  of  the 
Socinian,  who  pleads  that  these  are  but 
hefe.°  P'°'°P°P°''^  instances  of  the  trope  of  Impersonation,  like 
those  of  Rom.  vii :  1 1  ;  iii :  19  ;  i  Cor.  xiii :  7; 
Gen.  iv :  10;  Heb.  xii:  24.  We  will  not  plead  with  Turrettin, 
that  the  explanation  is  inapplicable  to  the  Holy  Ghost ;  because 
impersonations  are  usually  of  things  corporeal  and  inanimate, 
as  when  the  blood  of  Abel  cried,  &c  ;  for  the  case  of  i  Cor.  xiii: 
7,  proves  that  the  Scripture  does  not  limit  the  figure  to  this 
class  of  objects,  but  sometimes  impersonates  abstractions.  The 
true  answers  are,  that  the  Socinian  explanation  is  inapplicable, 
because  no  candid  writer  uses  an  impersonation,  without 
placing  something  in  his  context,  or  afterwards  dropping  the 
figure,  so  as  to  show  unmistakably  to  the  reader,  that  he  meant 
only  an  impersonation.  The  force  of  this  is  only  seen  when  the 
reader  gathers  the  multitude  of  places  in  the  Scriptures,  where 
such  language  prevails,  speaking  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  though 
He  were  a  person  ;  and  when  he  finds  the  utter  absence  of  the 
proper  qualification,  (b)  The  explanation  is  impossible,  because 
in  a  multitude  of  places  the  Holy  Ghost  is  distinguished  from 
the  Godhead,  whose  impersonated  attribute  He  would  be  on 
this  supposition ;  e,  g.,  when  it  is  said,  "  charity  suffereth  long 
and  is  kind,"  the  only  possible  meaning  is,  that  the  charitable 
man  does  so.  When  it  is  said  God's  Spirit  will  guide  us  into  all 
truth,  if  the  figure  of  impersonation  were  there,  the  meaning 
would  be,  that  God,  who  is  spiritual,  will  guide  us.  But  in  that 
very  passage  the  spirit  that  guides  is  distinguished  from  God. 
"  Whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  (i.  e.,  from  the  Father  and  Son,) 
that  shall  he  speak."     This  leads  us  to  argue: 

(c)  That  the  Holy  Ghost  must  be  a  Person,  because  dis- 
tinguished so  clearly  from  the  Father,  whose  quality  or  influ- 
ence He  would  be,  if  He  were  an  abstraction  ;  and  farther, 
because  distinguished  in  some  places  alike  from  the  Father  and 
Son  ;  e.  g..  He  is  sent  by  both.  John  xiv  :  16  ;  xv  :  26;  xvi :  7. 
The  TZ'^ihiixi,  though  neuter,  is  constructed  with  the  masculine 
pronouns.  John  xvi :  13;  Eph.  i:  13,  14.  He  concurs  with  the 
Father  and  Son,  in  acts  or  honors  which  are  to  them  undoubtedly 
personal:  and  hence, to  Him  likewise.  Matt,  xxviii :  19;  2  Cor. 
xiii;    14. 

(d)  His  presence  is  represented  by  visible  symbols,  a  thing 
which  is  never  done  for  a  mere  abstraction  elsewhere  in  Script- 


196  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ure,  and  is,  indeed,  logically  preposterous.  For  the  propriety 
of  the  material  symbol  depends  wholly  on  some  metaphorical 
resemblance  between  the  accidents  of  the  matter,  and  the  attri- 
butes of  the  Being  symbolized ;  e.  g.,  Shekinah  represents  God. 
Its  brightness  represents  His  glory.  Its  purity — His  holiness.  Its 
fierce  heat — His  jealousy,  &c.,  &c.  Now,  if  the  dove.  Matt,  iii : 
16,  and  the  fiery  tongue,  Acts  ii  :  3,  symbolize  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  He  an  abstraction,  the  analogy  has  to  be  sought  between  the 
accidents  or  qualities  of  the  dove  and  the  fire,  and  the  attributes 
of  an  abstraction  !  [Quid  I'ides.)  But  moreover,  in  i\Iatt.  iii :  16, 
the  three  persons  all  attest  their  presence  at  once — the  Father,  in 
His  voice  from  heaven  ;  the  Son,  in  His  human  person ;  the  Spirit, 
in  the  descending  dove.  Here,  surely,  the  dove  does  not  person- 
ate an  abstract  attribute  of  the  Father  or  Son,  for  this  would  be 
to  personate  them  as  possessing  that  attribute.  But  they,  at  the 
moment,  had  their  distinct  personal  representations. 

(e)  The  personality  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  most  plainly  im- 
plied in  the  act  of  sinning  against  Him,  committed  by  Ananias. 
Acts  v  :  3.  Israel,  Is.  Ixiii :  10;  the  Pharisees,  Matt,  xii :  31,  32. 
Some  one  may  say:  that  i  Tim.  vi:  i,  speaks  of  the  sin  of 
blasphemy  against  God's  word  and  doctrine.  Such  an  explan- 
ation is  impossible  in  the  above  cases,  and  especially  in  Matt, 
xii:  31,  32.  For  if  the  Holy  Ghost  only  represents  an  attribute  of 
God,  then  to  blaspheme  that  attribute  is  simply  to  blaspheme 
God.  But  in  this  case,  the  acts  of  blaspheming  the  Father  and 
Son,  are  expressly  distinguished  from  that  of  blaspheming  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  have  different  grades  of  guilt  assigned  them. 

(f)  It  is  also  implied  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  Person,  by 
the  distinction  made  between  Him  and  His  gifts.  i  Cor.  xii: 
4,  8.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  were  an  influence,  or  exertion  of  God's 
power  on  the  creature,  as  He  must  be  held  to  be  in  these  places, 
by  Socinians,  then  He  would  be  virtually  here,  the  gift  of  a 
gift!  This  leads  us  to  notice  a  class  of  texts,  in  which  the 
Socian  explanation  appears  supremely  ridiculous;  it  is  those  in 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  distinguished  from  the  power  of  God. 
Now,  if  He  be  but  a  name  of  God's  influences  and  energies 
upon  the  souls  of  men,  the  general  word  power,  (ovv«/x'c)  ought 
to  represent  the  idea  of  Him  with  substantial  correctness.  Then, 
when  Luke  iv  :  14  says :  Christ  returned  from  the  desert  to 
Galilee  "  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit,"  it  is  equivalent  to  :  "  In  the 
power  of  the  power."  Acts  i:  8.  But  ye  shall  receive  power, 
after  that  the  holy  power  is  come  unto  you."  i  Cor.  ii  :  4. 
"  And  my  speech  and  my  preaching  were  not  with  enticing 
words  of  man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration  of  the  power,  and 
of  power."     Also  Actsx:  38;  Rom.  xv:  13,  19. 

The  Holy  Ghost  then,  is  not  an  abstraction,  nor  an  influ- 
ence merely,  but  a  Person,  in  the  full  sense  in  which  that  word 
is  applied  to  the  Father  and  Son,  possessing  will  and  active 
principles,  intelligence,  and  action. 


vine. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  I97 

The  next  step  is  to  prove  His  proper  divinity ;  and  this  has 
now  become   comparatively   easy.     We   fol- 
3.  This  Person  IS  Di-    j^^  ^■^^  familiar  order,  showing  that  He  has 
in    Scripture    the    names,   attributes,    works, 
and  worship  of  God.     The  principles  upon  which  the  argument 
proceeds,  are  the  same  already  unfolded  in  the  argument  for 
the  divinity  of  Christ,     (a)  We  find  the  name  Jehovah  applied 
to  the  Spirit,  by  comparing  Exod.  xvii :  7,  with  Heb.  iii :  9 ;   2 
Sam.  xxiii :  2,   Is.  vi :  9,    with    Acts    xxviii :  25  ;     possibly    Jer. 
xxxi  :   31,  compared  with   Heb.  x:    15.     The  name  God,  is  by 
plain  implication  ascribed  to  Him  in  Acts  v :  3,  4,  &c.,  and   i 
Cor.  iii :  16,  with  vi :  19.     The  name  Highest,  seems  to  be  given 
Him  in  Luke  i :  35.     (b)  The  attributes  are  ascribed  to  Him  ;  as 
omnipresence,    implied  by    i  Cor.  iii :  16,  and  by  the  promises 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  an  innumerable   multitude   of  Christians 
at  once.     Omniscience,  i  Cor.  ii :  10,  with  v.  1 1  ;  omnipresence, 
I  Cor.  xii:  13.     The  same  thing  appears  from   His  agency  in 
inspiration    and    prophecy.     Jno.  xvi :  13;    2   Pet.   i:2i.     Sov- 
ereignty, I  Cor.  xii:  ii.     (c)  The  w^orks  of  God,  as  of  creation. 
Gen.  i :  2.     Preservation,  Ps.  civ  :  30.     Miracles,  Matt,  xii :  28  ; 
I  Cor.  xii :  4.     Regeneration   and   sanctification,   Jno.  iii :  5  !    i 
Cor.   vi:    ii;    2   Thess.   ii :    13;    i   Pet.  i:   2.     Resurrection  of 
the  dead,  Rom.  viii :  ii.     (d)  The  worship  of  God  is  also  attri- 
buted to  Him,  in  the  formula  of  Baptism,  the  Apostolic  bene- 
diction, and  the   prayer  of    Rev.  i :  4.     Other    passages    cited 
seem  to  me  of  very  questionable  application. 

Against  the  Spirit's  personality,  it  has  been  urged,  that  it 
is  preposterous  to  speak  of  a  Person  as  shed 
Objections  answered.  ^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^^ .  ^s  constituting  the  mate- 
rial of  an  anointing,  as  in  i  Jno.  ii :  27 ;  whereas,  if  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  understood  as  only  a  name  for  God's  influences,  the 
figure  is  proper.  The  answer  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit's  gifts 
are  meant,  when  the  giver  is  named,  a  most  common  and  natu- 
ral metonymy.  The  expressions  are  surely  no  harder  to 
reconcile,  than  those  of  "putting  on  Christ,"  to  be  "baptized 
into  Christ."     Eph.  v:  30;  Rom.  xiii :  14;  Gal.  iii:  27. 

To  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  it  has  been 
objected,  that  He  is  evidently  subordinate,  inasmuch  as  He 
is  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  is  limited  in  His  messa- 
ges by  what  they  commit  to  Him.  John  xvi  :  7,  13.  The 
obvious  answer  is,  that  this  subordination  is  only  economical, 
relating  to  the  official  work  to  which  the  Divine  Spirit  conde- 
scends for  man's  redemption,  and  it  no  more  proves  His 
inferiority,  than  the  humiliation  of  the  Son,  His. 

The  Nicene  Creed,  as  settled  A.  D.  381,  by  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,    had    stated    that    the    Holy 
4.  History  of  Ques-    Q^ost  proceedeth  from    the   Father,   saying 
tion  of  rrocession.  ^  ■  r  •  c  ^i         o 

nothmg  of   any   procession    trom   the    bon. 
But  the  Western  Doctors,  especially  Augustine,  leaned  more 


198  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

and  more  towards  the  view,  that  His  personal  relation  connected 
Him  in  the  same  inscrutable  way,  with  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
As  the  Arian  Christians  of  the  Gothic  nations,  who  had  occu- 
pied the  Western  provinces  of  the  empire,  began  to  come  into 
the  Orthodox  Catholic  Church,  it  was  judged  more  important, 
to  assert  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  the  Son 
equally  with  the  Father,  in  order  to  eradicate  any  lingering  ideas 
of  a  subordination  of  substance  in  the  Son,  which  converts 
from  Arianism  might  be  supposed  to  feel.  Hence,  we  are  told, 
a  provincial  council  in  Toledo,  A.  D.  458,  first  enacted  that  the 
Latin  form  of  the  creed  should  receive  the  addition  of  the 
words,  filioqiie.  But  this,  although  popular  in  Spain  and 
France,  was  not  adopted  in  Rome,  even  so  late  as  A.  D.  809, 
when  Charlemagne  endeavored  in  vain  to  secure  its  adoption 
by  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  But  the  Latin  Christians  were  contin- 
ually using  it  more  extensively,  to  the  indignation  of  the 
Greeks.  This  addition,  as  yet  unwarranted,  was  the  bone  of 
contention  (along  with  others,)  throughout  the  9th  and  subse- 
quent centuries.  The  Latin  Primate  seems  to  have  sanctioned 
the  addition  to  the  creed,  about  the  nth  century,  proceeding 
upon  that  general  doctrinal  consent,  which  the  Latin  Church  had, 
for  so  many  centuries,  held  to  be  the  voice  of  inspiration,  accord- 
ing to  the  raaxim  of  Vincentius  of  Lerins.  In  the  great  Council 
of  Lyons,  A.  D.  1374,  the  Greeks,  eager  for  a  compromise,  on 
account  of  the  pressure  of  the  Mohammedans,  submitted  to  the 
Latin  doctrine.  But  they  soon  returned  to  their  old  views  with 
new  violence.  Again,  in  1439,  ^'^^  kingdom  of  Constantinople, 
then  tottering  to  its  fall,  sulsmitted  to  a  partial  compromise,  in 
order  to  secure  Western  support ;  and  it  was  agreed  in  the 
Council  of  Florence  (adjourned  to  Pisa,)  that  it  should  be  said : 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceedeth  from  the  Father  through  the  Son. 
But  even  this,  the  Greeks  soon  repudiated  ;  and  both  parties 
have  returned,  ever  since,  to  their  opposition. 

To  the  dispassionate  mind,  the  dispute  cannot  but  appear 

of  small  importance,  and  the  grounds  of  both 
^_  Argument  Inconclu-    parties  uncertain.     The   basis  on  which  the 

idea  itself  of  an  eternal  and  necessar}^  rela- 
tion of  procession  rests,  seems  to  me  scarcely  sufficiently  solid 
without  the  analogy  of  the  Son.  It  is  composed  of  the  facts 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  called  the  Spirit,  (-vsv/i«,)  of  the 
Father,  (from  -vsoj,)  and  that  in  one  solitary  passage,  (John  xv : 
26,)  it  is  said,  He  "proceedeth  from  the  Father."  All  parties 
admit,  that  if  there  is  such  an  eternal  relation  as  procession,  it 
is  inscrutable.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Greeks  rely  on  the  fact 
that  He  is  never  said  to  proceed  from  the  Son ;  and  on  the 
ancient  view  of  the  Greek  scholastic  fathers,  that  the  Father 
alone  is  the  //'/f-^,  or  Tzr^-f^j  'Hzoo.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Latins 
urge,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  stated  to  be  related  to  the  Son,  in 
the  Scriptures,  in  every  way,  except  procession,  just  as  He  is 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  1 99 

to  the  Father.  He  is  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Son,"  as  well  as  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father,  (and  they  suppose  the  very  name,  Spirit, 
expresses  His  eternal  relation  as  much  as  the  word  procession.) 
He  is  sent  by  the  Son,  and  He  is  sent  by  the  Father ;  He 
shows  the  things  of  the  Son  as  much  as  those  of  the  Father; 
for  Christ  says,  (John  xvi :  15,)  "All  things  that  the  Father  hath 
are  mine."  But  as  Dick  well  observes  :  unless  it  can  be  proved 
that  spiration,  mission,  and  speaking  the  things  of  Christ, 
exhaust  the  whole  meaning  of  procession,  the  demonstration  is 
not  complete.  And  since  the  whole  meaning  of  procession  is 
not  intelligible  to  human  minds,  that  quality  of  meaning  cannot 
be  known,  except  by  an  express  assertion  of  God  Himself. 
Such  an  express  word  we  lack ;  and  hence,  it  appears  to  me, 
that  this  is  a  subject  on  which  we  should  not  dogmatize.  Should 
it  be  that  the  Son  does  not  share  with  the  Father  the  eternal 
spiration  of  the  Spirit,  this  would  no  more  imply  an  essential 
inferiority  of  the  second  Person,  than  does  his  filiation.  The 
essence  is  common  to  the  three  Persons ;  the  relations  incom- 
municable. Enough  for  us  to  know  the  blessed  truth,  that 
under  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  the  Divine  Spirit  condescends 
economically  to  commit  the  dispensation  of  His  saving  influ- 
ences to  the  Son  as  our  king,  and  to  come  at  His  bidding, 
according  to  the  agreement,  to  subdue,  sanctify,  and  save  us. 
It  mav  be  said,  that,  as  there  is  a  peculiar  point  of  view  from 
which  the  grace,  condescension  and  majesty  of  both  the  other 
persons  are  especially  displayed,  calling  for  our  gratitude  and 
reverence,  so  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Father  condescends,  in  giving  his  Son.  The  Son,  in  assuming 
our  nature  and  guilt;  and  the  Spirit,  in  making  His  immediate 
abiding  place  in  our  guilty  breasts,  and  there  purging  out  the 
depravity,  which  His  majesty  and  justice,  as  very  God,  would 
rather  prompt  Him  to  avenge. 

The  nature   of  the  offices  performed  by  the  2d  and   3d 

-p,.  .  .^      r       ,    persons  in  redemption,  implies  and  demands  a 
5.  Divinity    of    2nd     ^  ^■    ■    -^       ^t-i  •  i.       -n 

and  3d  persons  prov-    proper  divmity.     This  argument  will  require 

ed  by  offices  in  re-  us  to  anticipate  some  truths  concerning  the 
demption.  mediatorial    offices,    and    the    doctrines    of 

redemption ;  but  I  trust  that  sufficient  general  knowledge 
exists  in  all  well-informed  young  Christians,  to  make  the  dis- 
cussion intelligible  to  them.  This  argument  is  peculiarly 
important  and  interesting,  although  too  little  urged  by  theolo- 
gians, ancient  or  modern.  It  shows  that  this  high  mystery  of 
the  Trinity  has  a  most  extensive  practical  aspect ;  and  that  the 
scheme  of  the  Socinian  not  only  impugns  a  mystery,  but  makes 
havoc  of  the  Christian's  most  practical  hopes. 

Christ  performs  the  work  of  our  redemption  in  three 
offices,  as  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  The  offices  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  applying  redemption,  connect  themselves  with  the 
first  in  enlightening  and  guiding  us,  and  with  the  third  in  con- 


200  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

verting  us.  I  shall,  therefore,  couple  the  evidence  of  His 
divinity  from  those  two  offices,  with  what  I  have  to  say  of  the 
Son's  under  the  same  heads. 

1st.   Christ  and  His  Spirit  cannot  be  the  sufficient  guides  of 
Christ  and    Holy    ^n  immortal  spirit,  unless  they  have  a  truly 
Ghost,  as  Guides, must    infinite  understanding.     If  our  view  be  lim- 
^^  °''""^-  ited  only  to  the  preparation  of  a  Bible  for  us, 

and  all  the  constant,  varied,  endless,  inward  guidance  be  left 
out  of  view,  then  the  wonder  would  be,  how  one  moderate  vol- 
ume could  be  made  to  contain  principles  sufficient  for  an 
infinite  diversity  of  applications.  No  human  book  does  this. 
To  draw  up,  select  topics  for,  digest  such  a  code,  required 
omniscience. 

But  this  is  not  all.  We  have  daily  inward  guidance,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  providences  applying  the  word.  Now,  so  end- 
lessly diversified  and  novel  are  the  exigencies  of  any  one  soul, 
and  so  eternal  and  infinite  the  consequence  connected,  it  may 
be,  with  any  one  act,  that  it  requires  an  infinite  understanding  to 
lead  one  soul,  infallibly,  through  its  mortal  Hfe,  in  such  a  way 
as  to  insure  safe  consequences  to  all  eternity.  How  much 
more  to  lead  all  Christians  at  once? 

But  this  is  not  all.  Saints  will  be  under  duty  in  heaven. 
They  will  have  approached  towards  moral  stability  and  wisdom 
to  an  indefinite  degree,  by  means  of  their  ages  of  holy  action 
and  strengthening  habits.  But  they  will  still  not  be  omniscient 
nor  absolutely  immutable.  These  perfections  belong  to  God 
only.  To  a  fallible  creature,  every  precept  and  duty  implies  a 
possible  error  and  transgression,  just  as  a  right  branch  in  a 
highway  implies  a  left.  But  as  the  saint's  existence  is  pro- 
tracted to  immortality,  the  number  and  variety  of  these  moral 
exigencies  become  literally  infinite.  Hence,  had  he  only  a 
finite  wisdom  and  holiness  to  guide  him  through  them,  the  pos- 
sibility of  error,  sin  and  fall  at  soine  one  of  these  tests,  would 
become  a  probability,  and  would  grow  ever  towards  a  violent 
one,  approaching  a  certainty.  The  gospel  promises  that  the 
saint's  glorified  state  shall  be  everlasting  and  infallible.  This 
can  only  be  accomplished  by  his  having  the  guidance  of  infi- 
nite perfections.  But  since  we  are  assured  that  "  the  Lamb  is 
their  light,"  we  see  at  once,  that  his  light  is  none  other  than 
that  of  omniscience. 

2d.  None   but  a   properly   divine   being   could   undertake 
Christ   as  a  Priest     ^^^"^^'^    pnestl)'   work.      Had    he    been    the 
must  be  divine.  '    "oblest  creature  in  heaven,  his  life  and  pow- 

ers would  have  been  the  property  of  God, 
our  offended  Judge  ;  and  our  Advocate  could  not  have  claimed, 
as  He  does,  John  x:  i8,  that  He  had  i^o'jau/.^  to  lay  down  His 
Hfe  and  to  take  it  again.  Then :  unless  above  law.  He  could 
have  no  imputable,  active  obedience.  Third  :  unless  sustained 
by  omnipotence,  unless  sustained  by  inward  omnipotence.  He 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  20I 

could  never  have  endured  the  wrath  of  the  Almighty  for  the 
sins  of  the  world ;  it  would  have  sunk  Him  into  perdition. 
Fourth :  had  there  not  been  a  divine  nature  to  reflect  an  infi- 
nite dignity  upon  His  person,  His  suffering  the  curse  of  sin  for 
a  few  years,  would  not  have  been  a  satisfaction  sufficient  to 
propitiate  God  for  the  sins  of  a  world.  After  the  sacrifice, 
comes  intercession.  His  petitioners  and  their  wants  are  so 
numerous,  that  unless  He  were  endowed  with  sleepless  atten- 
tion, an  omnipotence  which  can  never  tire,  an  infinite  under- 
standing, omnipresence,  and  exhaustless  kindness,  He  could 
not  wisely  and  graciously  attend  to  so  many  and  multifarious 
calls.  Here  we  see  how  worthless  are  Popish  intercessors,  who 
are  only  creatures. 

3.  Christ,  through  His  Holy  Ghost,  begins  His  kingly 
work  with  us,  by  "  subduing  us  unto  Him- 
vin^el""^'"^  "''''' ^''^'"  self"  This  is  effected  in  the  work  of  regen- 
eration. Now  we  shall  see,  when  we  discuss 
effectual  calling,  that  this  is  a  directly  almighty  work.  Our 
sanctification  also  demands  omniscience.  For  he  who  would 
cure  the  ulcer,  must  probe  it ;  but  the  heart  is  deceitful  beyond 
all  created  ken.  If  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  practical, 
indwelling  agent  of  these  works,  is  a  creature,  then  we  have 
but  a  creature  redemption,  no  matter  how  divine  the  Beings 
that  send  Him.  For  the  channel  of  communication  to  our 
souls  being  finite,  the  communications  would  be  limited.  If 
you  have  the  whole  Atlantic  Ocean  connected  with  your  reser- 
voir by  an  inch  pipe,  you  can  draw  but  an  inch  of  w^ater  at 
once.  The  vastness  of  the  source  does  you  no  good,  beyond 
the  calibre  of  the  connecting  pipe. 

Moreover,  Christ  has  all  power  committed  to  His  hand, 
for  the  Church's  good.  It  requires  omniscience  to  comprehend 
this,  and  omnipotence  to  wield  it,  especially  when  we  recall  the 
power  of  our  enemies.     See  Rom.  viii :  38,  39;  Eph.  vi :  12. 

In  fine,  all  is  enhanced,  when  we  remember  that  our  stake 
is  the  soul,  our  all,  whose  loss  is  irreparable.  There  is  no  com- 
fort unless  we  have  an  infallible  dependence. 


LECTURE  XIX. 

PERSONAL  DISTINCTIONS  IN  THE  TRINITY. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  State  the  opinions  of  Socinians,  Arians  and  Orthodox,  concerning  the  genera- 
tion and  filiation  of  the  Son. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  27  and  29.  Hill's  Divinity,  bk,  iii,  ch.  10.  Dr.  S. 
Hopkins'  System,  Vol.  i,  p.  362,  &c.  Dick,  Lect.  29.  Cunningham's  Hist^ 
TheoL,  ch.  9,  §  3.  Knapp,  ^  43.  Alexander  Campbell,  "  Christian  System," 
ch.  4. 

2.  What  were  the  opinions  bf  the  ante-Nicehe  Fathers,  concerning  the  subordina- 
tion, of  the  2nd  and  3d  Persons,  the  three-fold  generation  of  the  Son,  and  the  distinc- 
tion of  A6yo(;  £v6iai}£T0(;  and  Aojof  lipoooptKor^ 

The  same  citations.     Knapp,  Lect.  42.     Neander,  Ch.  Hist.,  Vol.  i,  p.  585. 

3.  Prove  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son;  refute  the  common  objections,  and 
overthrow  the  Socinian  and  Arian  explanations  thereof. 

Same  citations.  "  Letters  on  the  Eternal  Sonship  of  Christ,"  by  Dr.  Samuel 
Miller,  iii,  iv.     Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  pt.  ii,  ch.  12,  §  5. 

4.  What'is  the  difference  between  the  generation  of  the  Son,  and  the  Procession 
of  the  Spirit  ?     Can  the  latter  be  proved  eternal  ? 

Same  citations. 

J  THE  discussions  and  definitions  of  the  more  formal  and 
•  scholastic  Theologians,  concerning  the  personal  distinctions 
in  the  Godhead,  have  always  seemed  to  me  to  present  a  strik- 
ing instance  of  the  reluctance  of  the  human  mind  to  confess  its 
own  weakness.  For,  let  any  read  them  with  the  closest  atten- 
tion, and  he  will  perceive  that  he  has  acquired  little  more  than 
a  set  of  terms,  whose  abstruseness  serves  to  conceal  from  him 
their  practical  lack  of  meaning.  It  is  debated  whether  the 
personal  distinction  is  real,  or  formal,  or  virtual,  or  personal,  or 
modal.  Turrettin  decides  that  it  may  best  be  called  modal  — 
i.  e.,  as  a  distinction  in  the  Diodus  subsistcndi.  But  what  those 
modes  of  subsistence  are,  remains  none  the  less  inscrutable ; 
and  the  chief  reason  why  the  term  modal  is  least  objectionable, 
seems  to  be  that  it  is  most  general.  After  all,  the  mind  must  be 
content  with  these  facts,  the  truth  of  which  it  may  apprehend,, 
although  their  full  meaning  cannot  be  comprehended  by  us ; 
that  there  is  an  eternal  and  necessary  distinction  between  the 
essence  and  the  persons,  the  former  being  absolute,  and  the 
latter  relative ;  that  the  whole  essence  is  truly  in  each  person, 
with  all  its  attributes ;  that  yet  the  essence  is  not  divided  or 
distributed  between  them,  but  single  and  indivisible ;  that  the 
distinction  of  persons  is  one  truly  subsisting,  subsisting  eter- 
nally by  the  very  necessity  of  the  divine  nature,  and  not  merely 
relative  to  our  apprehensions  of  it;  and  that  the  persons  are 
not  convertible  the  one  into  the  other,  nor  the  properties  of  the 
one  predicable  of  another. 

Each  Person  has  its  peculiar  property,  which  is  not  indeed 

constitutive   of,   but    distinctive    of   it.     The 

Personal  Properries.     ^^^^^^^^  ^f  ^he  Father  is  to  be  unbegotten  - 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  2O3 

of  the  Son,  generation  ;  and  of  the  Spirit,  procession.  Hence, 
three  characteristic  relations  —  in  the  Father,  paternity;  in  the 
Son,  fihation ;  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  spiration.  That  there 
are  such  properties  and  relations,  we  know ;  what  they  are,  we 
do  not  know. 

We  find  ourselves  speaking  almost  inevitably  of  1st,  2d, 

and  3d  persons;    thus  implying  some  order 
2.  Order  of  the  Per-    -^^  ^^^^  persons.     No  ortliodox  Christian,  of 
sons.  , 

course,  understands  this  order  as  relating  to 

a  priority  of  time,  or  of  essential  dignity.  To  what,  then, 
does  it  relate  ?  And  is  there  any  substantial  reason  for  assign- 
ing such  an  order  at  all?  We  reply:  There  must  be;  when 
we  find  that  where  the  three  persons  are  mentioned  by  Scrip- 
ture, in  connection,  as  in  Matt,  xxviii :  19,  &c.,  &c.,  they  are 
usually  mentioned  as  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  in 
reversed  order ;  that  in  all  allusions  to  the  properties  and  rela- 
lations  of  the  three,  the  Father  is  always  spoken  of  (e.  g.  the 
word  Father)  by  some  term  or  trait  implying  primary  rank,  and 
the  other  two,  by  some  implying  secondariness ;  as  Christ  is 
His  Son,  the  Holy  Ghost  His  Spirit ;  they  are  sent.  He  the 
Sender;  and  in  their  working,  there  is  always  a  sort  of  refer- 
ence to  the  Father's  primariness,  (if  I  may  coin  a  word,) 
directing  their  operation.  See  also  Jno.  v;  26;  x:38;  xiv:  ii; 
xvii :  21  ;   Heb.  i:  3. 

But  if  it  be  asked,  what  is  the  primariness,  the  answer  is  not 
so  easy.     It  was  the  usual  answer  of  the  ante- 
FaThers^erLi?'^"^    Nicene,   and  especially  the   Greek    Fathers, 
that  it  indicated  the  order  of  derivation,  that 
the  personality  of  the  Son  is  from  that  of  the  Father,  not  the 
Father's  from  the  Son  ;  and  so  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     (And  so  far, 
it   must  be  allowed,  the   fair  force   of  the   Scripture  facts  just 
stated,    carries   them   properly   enough.)       The    Father   they 
regarded   as  d.uacTco^,  as  Tirjyr^  Oeou,  or  'If'X'j  0^ou,  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost  as  acnacro:,  as    9so:  ex  6soo,  and  as  deriving  their 
personal  subsistence  from  the  eternal  act  of  the  Father  in  com- 
municating   the    divine   essence    to   them    in    those    modes    of 
subsistence.     And  this  view  was  embodied  in  both  forms  of  the 
Nicene  Creed,  of  A.  D.  325    and  381,  where  the  Son  is  called, 
"  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  and  very  God  of  very   God ;" 
language  never  applied  to  the  Father  as  to  the  Son.     Their  idea 
is,  that  the  Father,  the  original  Godhead,  eternally      generates 
the  person,  not  the  substance  of  the  Son,  and  produces  by  pro- 
cession the  person,  not  the  substance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
inscrutably     communicating      the     whole      indivisible      divine 
substance,  essentially  identical  with  Himself  in  these  two  modes 
of  subsistence ;    thus   eternally    causing  the   two    persons,    by 
causing  the  two  additional  modes  of  subsistence.     This  state- 
ment, they  suppose,  was  virtually  implied  in  the  very  relation 
of  terms,  Father  and  His  Son,  Father  and  His  Tcvzuiia,  by  the 


204  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

primariness  of  order  always  assigned  to  the  Father,  and  by  the 
distinction  in  the  order  of  working.  And  they  rehed  upon  this 
view  to  vindicate  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  charge  of 
tritheism.  You  will  probably  think,  with  me,  that  its  value  for 
this  last  purpose  is  questionable,  for  this  reason  :  that  the  modes 
of  subsistence  of  the  persons  being  wholly  inscrutable,  the 
true  answer  to  the  charge  of  tritheism  is  to  be  found  for  our 
minds,  in  that  fact,  coupled  with  the  Scriptural  affirmation,  that 
God  is  one  as  truly  as  the  persons  are  three.  Hence  no  explan- 
ation of  the  derivation  of  one  subsistence  from  another  really 
brings  us  any  nearer  to  the  secret,  how  it  is  one  and  three.  But 
the  answers,  which  the  advocates  of  this  .Patristic  view  pre- 
sented to  objections,  seem  to  my  mind  much  more  consistent 
than  Dick  would  intimate.  Was  it  objected,  that  they  repre- 
sented the  2d  and  3d  persons  as  beginning  to  exist,  and  thus 
robbed  them  of  a  true  self-existence  and  eternity?  These 
Fathers  could  answer  with  justice:  No;  the  processes  of 
personal  derivation  were  eternal,  immanent  processes,  and  the 
Father  has  a  personal  priority,  not  in  time,  but  only  in  causation  ; 
e.  g..  the  sun's  rays  hav^e  existed  precisely  as  long  as  he  has  ; 
yet  the  rays  are  from  the  sun  and  not  the  sun  from  the  rays. 
And  the  2d.  person  may  be  derived  as  to  His  personality, 
??£oc  ^y-  deo~j,  and  yet  self-existent  God ;  because  His  essence  is 
the  one  self-existent  essence,  and  it  is  only  His  personality  which 
is  derived.  They  regard  self-existence  as  an  attribute  of 
essence,  not  of  person.  Was  it  objected  that  these  derived 
personalities  were  unequal  to  the  ist.  person?  They  answer: 
No  ;  because  the  Father  put  His  whole  essence  in  the  two 
other  modes  of  subsistence.  Was  it  said,  that  then  the  personal 
subsistence  of  the  2d.  and  3d.  was  dependent  on  the  good 
pleasure  of  the  ist. ;  and,  therefore,  revocable  at  His  pleasure? 
They  answered,  that  the  generation  and  procession  were  not 
free,  contingent  acts,  but  necessary  and  essential  acts,  free 
indeed,  yet  necessitated  by  the  very  perfection  of  the  eternal 
substance.  You  will  perceive  that  I  have  not  used  the  word 
subordination,  but  derivation,  to  express  this  personal  relation. 
If  you  ask  me  whether  I  adopt  the  Patristic  view,  thus  cleared, 
as  my  own,  I  reply,  that  there  seems  to  me  nothing  in  it 
inconsistent  with  revealed  truth ;  yet  it  seems  to  me  rather  a 
rational  explanation  of  revealed  facts,  than  a  revealed  fact  itself. 
On  such  a  subject,  therefore,  none  should  dogmatize. 

It  may  be  well  to  explain,  also,  how  the  Rationalizing 
\6yoc  hSm^eroc,  &c.  fathers  connected  their  theory  of  the  Trinit>- 
with  this  generation  of  the  Son,  Attempting 
to  comprehend  the  Divine  essence  through  the  analogy  of  the 
human  spirit,  and  according  to  the  Platonic  metaphysics,  they 
said  that  the  Son  or  A'tyo:,  is  God's  Reason  or  intellective  action  ; 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  His  (/"■>//■,  or  emotive  and  vital  activity.  In 
the    ages    of   eternity    the  Son   was    the    Joync    i:\.o'j/.iltz(K,    or 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  20$, 

Ratio  iiisita,  God's  reason  acting  only  by  self-comprehension, 
according  to  Prov.  viii  :  22  :  John  i :  2.  When,  in  time,  God 
began  to  effectuate  His  decree  in  works  ot  creation  and  provi- 
dence, He  became  the  Abjoc.  Tifioil'Oficxoz,  or  ratio  prolata.  When 
at  length  He  was  born  of  the  flesh  for  man's  redemption,  He  be- 
came the  Abyo^i  tvaany.r/o',  incarnate.  Hence,  the  Father  maybe 
said  to  have  made  three  productions  of  the  Son — one  from 
eternity,  one  when,  in  time,  the  Son  was  sent  out  as  Agent  of 
God's  working,  one  when  He  was  born  of  the  Virgin. 

This  is  the  transition  point,  to  enable  us  t^  comprehend  the 

views  of  the  Arians  concerning  Christ's  gen- 
ation  eternat'^  ^    ^^^^'    oration.     These  heretics  usually  admitted  the 

justice  of  the  metaphysical  explanation  of 
God's  immanent  acts.  But,  said  they,  as  the  human  mind  has 
not  one,  but  a  numerous  series  of  acts  of  intellection,  fo;^//«ra,so- 
a  fortiori,  the  infinite  mind  of  God.  There  is,  of  course,  some 
primary  voYjixa,  and  this  is  the  eternal,  immanent  Abyo:;  of  John 
i :  2.  There  are  other  vorjiw.Ta  in  the  divine  mind,  and  some 
one  of  these  is  the  one  embodied,  in  time,  in  the  creation  of 
the  Son,  "  by  whom  He  made  the  worlds."  Thus  they  endeav- 
oured to  reconcile  the  creation  of  the  Son  out  of  nothing,  with 
the  eternity  of  a  Aoyo^.  How  worthless  all  this  is,  I  need 
not  say. 

The  Arians,  like  all  others,  heterodox  and  orthodox,  find 

in  the  Scriptures  ascriptions  of  a  peculiar 
thfreoS!"'^    language    Sonship  of  Christ,  needing  some  explanation. 

And  we  might  as  well  array  the  more  general 
of  these  Scripture  representations  here,  as  at  a  later  stage  of 
the  discussion.  I  shall  then  pursue  the  method  of  bringing  the 
several  explanations  of  the  Arian,  Socinian,  and  orthodox,  to 
the  test  of  these  Scriptures.  The  Messiah  is  called  the  Son  of 
God,  directly  or  indirectly,  once  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
about  one  hundred  and  sixteen  times  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  Father  receives  that  title  two  hundred  and  twenty 
times ;  while  no  creature  is  ever  called  the  Son  of  God,  in  the 
singular  number,  except  Adam.  Luke  iii :  38.  And  there  the 
peculiarity  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  it  was  tJie  Evangel- 
ist's purpose  to  show  that  Adam,  like  Christ,  had  no  human 
father.  Christ  is  God's  beloved  Son.  Matt  iii:  17;  xvii :  5; 
Mark  i :  1 1,  &c.  He  is  the  Son  who  alone  knoweth  the  Father. 
Luke  x :  22 ;  Jno.  x:  15;  and  who  reveals  Him.  He  claims 
God  as  "  His  own  Father,"  in  such  a  sense  as  to  make  the  Jews 
believe  that  He  made  Himself  equal  with  God.  Jno.  v:  17-19. 
He  is  a  Son  to  be  honoured  as  the  Father  is.  Jno.  v:  23.  He 
doeth  whatever  He  seeth  the  Father  do.  Jno.  v:  19.  He  is 
one  with  the  Father.  Jno.  x :  30.  He  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  though  incarnate.  Jno.  i :  18  ;  "and  is  the  only -begotten 
of  the  Father.  Jno.  i:  14;  and  izponnzoxoz  rAar^c.  xz'msoj::.  Col. 
i:  15.     Here,  surely,  is  evidence  of  some  peculiar  relation  other 


206  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

than  that  borne  by  God's  rational,  or  even  His  holy  creatures 
generall}'. 

Now,  says  the  Arian,  this  Divine  Creature  is  called  the 
Arian  Exposition.  fon,  and  only-begotten,  because  He  is  the 
nrst  Creature  the  rather  ever  produced  out 
of  nothing,  and  the  only  one  whom  He  produced  immediately, 
by  His  own  agency;  all  subsequent  productions,  including 
those  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  through  the  agency  of  this  Son. 
He  is  called  Son,  moreover,  because  He  has  received  a  peculiar 
adoption,  is  deputized  God  to  other  creatures,  and  a  splendid 
creature-image  of  the  divine  glory.  He  is  also  called  Son,  as 
being  born  by  miraculous  power  of  a  virgin,  and  being  consti- 
tuted God's  Messenger  to  fallen  man.  And  last :  He  is  Son, 
as  being  the  Heir,  by  adoption,  of  God's  throne  and  glory. 

The  Socinian  makes  Jesus  Christ  only  a  holy  man :  and  in 

c„„:„:„         ,      ,.       his  eyes  His  peculiar  Sonship  means  nothing 
Socinian  explanation.  -^  , ,  .'^        ^^  ,    ^  _  .      .& 

more  tjian  that  He  was  born  of  a  virgin 
without  human  father,  that  He  was  adopted  by  God,  and 
endued  with  most  eminent  spiritual  endowments,  that  He  was 
sent  forth  as  God's  chosen  mouth-piece  to  call  a  fallen  race  to 
repentance  and  obedience ;  and  that  He  received  the  privilege  of 
an  immediate  glorification,  including  His  resurrection,  ascension, 
and  exaltation  to  God's  throne. 

But  among  Trinitarians  themselves  there  are  some,  who 
,   give  to  Christ's  Sonship  a  merely  temporal 

A  peculiar  view   of    „^       •  t^i  i     i-  .1     ,    ^1  1  ,    ^1 

some  Trinitarians.  meaning.      Ihey  believe  that  the  2d  and  the 

3d  persons  are  as  truly  divine  as  we  do ; 
they  believe  with  us,  that  there  is  a  personal  distinction,  which 
has  been  eternal ;  but  they  do  not  believe  that  the  terms  gen- 
eration and  procession  were  ever  intended  by  Scripture  to 
express  that  eternal  relation.  On  the  contrary,  they  suppose 
that  they  merely  denote  the  temporal  functions  which  the 
persons  assume  for  man's  redemption.  Such  appears  to  have 
been  the  view  of  the  Hollander  Roell,  of  Dr.  Ridgeley,  in  Eng; 
of  Emmons  and  Moses  Stuart,  of  New  Eng.;  and  of  the 
notorious  Alex.  Campbell. 

Now,  to  begin  with  the  lowest  scheme,  the  Socinian :  it 

Socinian  E  '       utterly  fails  at  the  first  blush  of  the  contest. 

fails.*^'"'^"    ^^  ^"^  °"    It  does  not  explain  why  Christ  is  called  the 

Son,  while  all  other  creatures  are  called  sons 
in  the  plural  only.  It  does  not  explain  why  He  was  the 
beloved  Son,  why  He  comprehended  and  revealed  the  Father, 
why  He  was  of  equal  honour,  and  identical  substance,  rather 
than  other  holy  creatures.  It  utterly  fails  to  explain  why  He 
is  only-begotten;  for.  Adam  was  begotten  by  God's  direct 
power,  not  only  without  father,  but  without  mother.  His 
endowments  and  His  mission  only  differed,  according  to  Socin- 
ians,  in  degree  from  those  of  other  prophets,  who  were,  there- 
fore, in  this  sense,  as  truly  sons  as  He.     And  last :  His  resur- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  20/ 

rection  and  glorification  leave  Him  behind  Enoch  and  Elijah, 
who  were  translated. 

The  Arian  scheme  also  fails  to  explain  how  His  Sonship 

made  Him  one  with  the  Father,  and  of  equal 
faik''^"  explanation    honour;    how  it  capacitates  Him  to  be  the 

revealer  and  image  of  the  Father's  person 
and  glory  in  a  manner  generically  different  from  all  other  crea- 
tures ;  and  how  it  proves  Him  only-begotten.  It  leaves  unsat- 
isfied the  declaration,  that  while  they  were  xziacz,  He  was 
TzncoTozoxo:; :  and  begotten  before  every  creature ;  so  that  He 
would  be  produced  in  a  totally  different  way  from,  and  pro- 
duced before,  the  whole  creature  class  to  which,  on  their 
scheme.  He  belongs !  And  last,  like  the  Socinian  scheme,  it 
leaves  wholly  unexplained  how  a  creature  (therefore  finite) 
could  be  competent  to  the  exercise  of  all  the  works  he  seeth 
the  Father  do,  and  to  a  divine  glorification. 

Against  the  third  view  I  would  urge  the  general  force  of 

the  passages  I  collected  above.     It  may  at 

Only  an  eternal  Gen-     j^^^^   ^^  g^jj    ^^^^   jf  -^  ^^^^^  j^^^  intended   tO 
eration  meets  the  texts.  ,      ,  '  i    i  •   .  •      ^  • 

teach  that  the  permanent  personal  distmction 

was  that  of  filiation,  the  Scriptures  have  been  singularly  unfor- 
tunate. But  I  shall  proceed  to  cite  other  authorities,  which  are 
more  decisive  of  the  point.  In  doing  this  I  shall  be  also  adding 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  Arian  and  Socinian  views  by  an  a 
fortiori  argument.  For  if  a  scheme  of  temporal  filiation, 
coupled  with  the  admission  of  a  true  and  eternal,  though 
unnamed,  personal  distinction,  will  not  "satisfy  the  meaning  of 
the  texts ;  still  less  will  the  scheme  of  a  temporal  filiation 
which  denies  the  eternity  and  divinity  of  the  2d  person. 

(a)  In  a  number  of  passages  it  is  said,  that  God  "  sent," 
"gave,"  &c.,  His  Son :  e.  g.,  Rom.  viii :  3.  "  God 
Because    Chnst    is    ggi-j^jij^g-  j^jg  q^^^  Sq^,  in  the  likeness  of  sin- 
Son,  when  sent.  ^,^^,,^  r^        t  •••         ^      t  •••      o 
ful  flesh,    &c.     So,  Jno.  m  :  16;  Jno.  in  :  8; 

iv  :  9 ;  Gal.  iv  :  4 ;  Acts  iii :  26.  Now,  who  would  dream  that 
when  God  says,  "  He  sends  the  Son  in  the  flesh,"  He  was  not 
His  Son  before,  but  was  made  such  by  the  sending?  See  also 
I  Tim.  iii:  16;   I  Jno.  iii:  8. 

The  three  Old  Testament  passages,  Ps.  ii :  7  ;  Prov.  viii :  7; 

22,  23;   Micah  v:  2,  are  advanced  with  great 
Son,  when  pre-exist-    g^btlety  and  force  by  Turrettin.     He  favours, 

for  the  first,  the  interpretation  of  the  "  to- 
day" ("have  I  begotten  thee,")  as  tjie  punctiim  stans,  or  eter- 
nal now,  of  the  divine  decree.  The  great  objection  is,  that  the 
idiom  and  usage  of  the  Psalms  do  not  sustain  it.  It  is  better, 
with  Calvin  and  Hengstenberg,  to  understand  the  verb,  "  have 
begotten,"  according  to  a  frequent  Hebrew  usage,  as  equivalent 
to  the  manifestation,  or  declaration,  of  His  generation.  This 
took  place  when  Christ  was  revealed  to  His  Church.  The  pass- 
age  then  does    not    prove,  but    neither    does    it    disprove,  the 


208  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

eternity  of  His  generation.  In  this  text,  as  well  as  Prov.  viii : 
22,  23,  Turrettin  argues  the  identity  of  the  subject  with  Jesus 
Christ,  with  great  force.  In  Micah  v:  2,  the  application  to 
Jesus  Christ  is  indisputable,  being  fixed  by  Matt,  ii :  6.  The 
relevancy  of  the  text  to  His  eternal  generation  depends  on  two 

points  —  whether  the  phrase  "going  forth,"  ri5^!»iO  means  gen- 
eration or  production,  or  only  manifestation  in  action  ;  and 
whether  the  phrase  "  from  of  old,  from  days  of  forever"  means 
eternity,  or  only  antiquity.  As  to  the  former  question,  we  are 
shut  up  to  the  first  meaning  of  generation,  by  the  usage. 
(Gesenius  giving  only  "  origin,  descent,")  and  by  the  considera- 
tion that  Christ's  manifestation  in  action  has  not  been  eternal. 
As  to  the  second  question,  the  sense  of  proper  eternity  is  cer- 
tainly the  most  natural.  The  only  plausible  rendering  besides 
the  one  given  by  Turrettin  is  the  one  hinted  by  Gesenius: 
("whose  descent  is  from  antiquity;"  referring  to  the  antiquity 
of  Christ's  human  lineage.)  And  manifestly  this  gives  to  the 
noun  the  perverted  sense  of  channels  of  descent  instead  of  act 
of  production,  its  proper  meaning. 

(c)  We  find  another  argument  for  the  eternal  generation 

of  the  Son,  in  a  number  of  passages,  as  the 
FadS.""  ''  '^'™^"^  Baptismal  formula;  the 'Apostolic  benedic- 
tion ;  Matt,  xi :  27 ;  Luke  x  :  22 ;  Jno.  v :  22  ; 
x:  33-37;  Rom.  viii :  32  ;  &c.,  &c.  In  all  these  cases  the  word 
Son  is  used  in  immediate  connection  with  the  word  Father,  so 
that  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  one  is 
reciprocal  to  the  other.  The  Son  is  evidently  Son  in  a  sense 
answering  to  that  in  which  the  Father  is  Father.  But  do  these 
passages  permit  us  to  believe  that  the  first  Person  here  receives 
that  term,  only  because  He  has  produced  a  human  nature  in 
which  to  clothe  the  Son,  when  the  two  first  passages  give  an 
enumeration  of  the  three  divine  Persons  as  making  up  the 
Godhead,  presented  in  its  most  distinctive  divine  attitude, 
receiving  the  highest  acts  of  worship,  and  all  the  others  bring 
to  view  acts  in  which  the  Father  and  Son  mutually  share 
essentially  divine  acts  or  honours?  It  is  plain  that  the  pater- 
nity here  means  something  characteristic  and  permanent ;  so, 
then,  does  the  filiation. 

(d)  In   Rom.  i:  3,  4;    we  read  that  the  "Son  of  God  was 

made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the 
'  flesh,  declared  with    power  ooicdivzo::  to  be 

the  Son  of  God  according  to  the  Spirit  of  Holiness,"  &c. 
Here  we  not  only  find  the  evidence  of  head  (a)  that  the  Son 
was  made  flesh,  and  so  was  Son  before;  but  the  evident  anti- 
thesis between  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit  of  holiness.  His  divine 
nature,  compels  us  to  read  that  His  resurrection  forcibly  mani- 
fested Him  to  be  God's  Son  as  to  His  divine  nature,  even  as  He 
was  David's  as  to   His  human.     But    if  His  fihation    to  God 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  2O9 

respects   His  divine  nature,  as  contrasted  with  His  human,  the 
question  is  settled. 

(e)  I  may  group  together  two  very  similar  passages.  Col. 
.  i:  14-17;   and  Heb.   i:    3-6.     The  Sonship 

creating.  ^^  °"  ^  ^^  i^  surely  not  merely  the  incarnation,  when  it 
is  stated  to  be  a  begetting  before  every  crea- 
ture !  The  Son  as  Son,  and  not  as  incarnate  only,  is  represented 
in  both  passages  as  performing  divine  functions,  as  representing 
the  Father's  nature  and  glory;  whence  we  must  infer  that  His 
Sonship  is  something  belonging  to  His  divinity,  not  His  human- 
ity merely.  And  in  Heb.  v:  5,  6,  the  Apostle  seems  to  aim 
explicitly  to  separate  His  Sonship  from  that  of  all  others  as 
divine  and  peculiar.  Consider  thus:  Heb.  i:  2;  iii:  5,  6;  vii : 
3,  and  vii :  28.  In  a  word,  the  generation  of  the  Son,  and 
procession  of  the  Spirit,  however  mysterious,  are  unavoidable 
corollaries  from  two  facts.  The  essence  of  the  Godhead  is 
one ;  the  persons  are  three.  If  these  are  both  true,  there  must 
be  some  way,  in  which  the  Godhead  multiplies  its  personal 
modes  of  subsistence,  without  multiplying  or  dividing  its  sub- 
stance. The  Scriptures  call  one  of  these  modes  a  ykvzafz  and 
the  other  an  BXTzopeom::.  We  thus  learn  two  truths.  The  2d 
and  3d  substances  are  eternally  propagated  in  dissimilar  modes. 
The  inscrutable  mode  of  the  2d  substance  bears  some  mysteri- 
ous analogy  to  the  generation  of  human  sons. 

It  has  been  supposed  that  the  following  texts  were  repug- 
^, .    ^  nant  to  our  view,  by  showing  that  the  filiation 

kj  DiGc  lions 

had  a  temporal  origin  in  Christ's  incarnation 
and  exaltation  as  a  mediatorial  Person:  Matt:  xvi :  16;  Luke 
i:  35  ;  Jno.  i:  49;  seem,  it  is  said,  to  imply  that  His  Sonship  is 
nothing  else  than  His  Messiahship,  and  in  Jno.  x:  35,  36;  it  is 
said,  He  states  Himself  to  be  Son  because  sanctified  and 
sent  into  the  world  by  the  Father.  The  answer  is,  that  this 
argument  confounds  the  traits  which  define  Him  as  Son  with 
those  which  constitute  Him  the  Son.  To  say  that  the  Messiah, 
the  Sent,  is  the  one  who  is  Son,  is  far  short  of  saying  that  these 
offices  make  Him  the  Son.  It  is  said  that  Acts  xiii :  33,  and  Col. 
i:  18  refer  the  Sonship  to  his  resurrection,  the  former  of  these 
passages  especially,  citing  Ps.  ii :  7  in  support  of  that  view.  I  re- 
ply, that  it  is  only  a  mistranslation  which  seems  to  make  Acts  xiii 
:  33  relate  to  Christ's  resurrection  at  all.  We  should  read,  in  that 
God  hath  set  up  (as  Messiah)  Jesus :  as  it  is  written  in  the  2nd  Ps.: 
"Thou  art  my  Son:  this  day  have  I  begotten  Thee."  Here  we 
see  a  striking  confirmation  of  the  sense  given  above  to  this  Ps. 
viz :  that  Christ's  Sonship  was  declaratively  manifested  by  His 
installment  as  Messiah.  In  the  Col.  i  :  18;  Christ  is  said  to  be 
the  TzocoroToxo'  ix  vcov  i/sxpcov.  But  evidently  the  concluding  words 
should  explain  the  meaning  :  "  That  in  all  things  He  might  have 
the  pre-eminence,"  in  the  resurrection  of  New  Testament  saints, 
as  well  as  in  an  eternal  generation. 
14* 


2IO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Once  more,  it  is  claimed  that  Luke  1:35;  plainly  defines 
the  incarnation  as  the  ground  of  the  Sonship.  The  simplest 
reply  is,  that  the  divine  nature  (compare  Rom.  i  :  4 ;)  was 
never  born  of  the  virgin,  but  only  the  humanity.  This  nature, 
thus  united  in  the  mediatorial  Person,  was  called  God's  Son, 
because  of  its  miraculous  generation,  so  that  the  whole  media- 
torial person,  in  both  natures,  might  be  Son  of  God  ;  that  which 
is  eternal,  eternally  Son,  and  that  which  is  temporal,  temporally 
Son.  If  the  adverse  rendering  is  to  hold,  then,  (a)  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  not  the  First  Person,  is  the  Father  of  Christ,  and  (b) 
His  Sonship  would  be  only  equal  to  Adam's. 

In  fine,  there  is  a  general  argument  for  the  eternal  genera- 
tion of  the  Son,  in  the  simple  fact  the  Scrip- 

Mr^T^'^^L  ^.u  "^ '^  1:  °^  ture  has  chosen  this  most  simple  and  import- 
Words:   Father — Son.  .         r  i*  i     • 

ant    pair   of    words    to    express    a    relation 

between  the  first  and  second  Persons.  There  must  have  been 
a  reason  for  the  choice,  there  must  be  something  corresponding 
to  the  well-known  meaning  of  this  pair  of  words,  else  eternal 
truth  would  not  have  employed  them.  That  meaning  must  of 
course  be  compatible  with  God's  immateriality  and  eternity, 
and  must  be  stripped  of  all  the  elements  arising  from  man's 
corporeal  and  finite  nature  and  temporal  existence.  It  is  not 
corporeal  generation,  nor  generation  in  time  ;  but  after  strip- 
ping it  of  all  this,  do  we  not  inevitably  get  this,  as  the  residuum 
of  meaning,  that  the  personal  subsistence  of  the  Son  is  deriva- 
tive, though  eternal,  and  constitutes  His  nature  the  same  with 
the  Father's? 

4.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  while  so  many  terms  and 

traits   belonging  to   generation  are   given   to 

Personal  Relation  of   ^|      ^^  Person,  not  one  of  them  is  ever  given 

Holy  Ghost.  .      „      .  '     ,   •        ,        tt      •     •     i        i  <<  ,  >. 

in  Scripture  to  the  3d.     He  is  indeed  "sent 

as  the  Son  is  "sent;  "  but  this  is  in  both  cases,  not  the  modal, 
but  merely  the  official  term.  The  nature  of  the  3d  personality 
is  always  represented  by  the  word  "  breath,"  and  his  production 
is  only  callfed  a  "proceeding  out"  The  inference  seems  fair, 
that  the  mode  of  personal  subsistence,  and  the  personal  relation 
is  therefore  different  from  that  of  the  Son.  But  as  both  are 
inscrutable,  we  cannot  tell  in  what  they  differ.  See  Turrettin, 
Locus  3,  Qu.  31,  §  3. 

The  evidence   for  the .  eternity    of    this    personal    relation 
I    tEtr    P  between  the   Spirit  and   the   other  two    Per- 

sons, is  much  more  scanty  than  that  for  the 
eternity  of  the  Son's  filiation.  In  only  one  place,  Jno.  xv :  26, 
is  the  Holy  Ghost  said  to  proceed  from  the  Father.  If  that 
place  stood  alone,  it  could  never  be  determined  from  it  whether 
it  was  intended  by  our  Saviour  to  define  the  mode  of  the  eter- 
nal subsistence  of  the  3d  person,  or  only  to  denote  his  official 
function  in  time.  But  besides  the  analogy  of  the  Son's  relation, 
we  may    infer   with    reasonable    certainty    that    it    intends    an 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  2  I  [ 

eternal  relation.  As  his  generation  is  not  a  mere  commission- 
ing in  time,  so  the  Spirit's  procession  is  not  a  mere  sending  or 
an  office  in  time.  Otherwise  the  symmetry  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  would  be  fatally"  broken  ;  while  the  Scriptures  hold 
out  three  co-ordinate  Persons,  eternally  subsisting  and  related 
as  Persons,  inter  se,  we  should  be  guilty  of  representing  the  3d 
as  bearing  no  permanent  relation  to  the  others. 


LECTURE  XX. 

DECREES  OF  GOD 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  How  do  Theologians  classify  the  acts  of  God  ? 
TKrrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  i.     Dick,  Lect.  34. 

2.  What  is  God's  Decree?-  Wherein  different  from  Fate?  What  is  the  dis- 
tinction between  permissive  and  efficacious  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  3.  Turrettin,  zibi  supra,  and  Loc.  vi,  Qu.  2.  Dick,  ///'/ 
supra.     Calv.  Inst.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  21. 

3.  Establish  the  following  properties  of  the  decree,  (a)  Unity,  (b)  Eternity,  ic) 
Universality,  embracing  especially  the  future  acts  of  free  agents,  (d)  Efficiency,  (e) 
Absoluteness  from  conditions,  (f)  Freedom,  and  (g)  Wisdom. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  2,  3  and  4.  Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  7,  g  1-3.  Dick,  ubi  supra. 
Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  26,  ^  i.  Knapp,  |  32.  Witsius  on  Gov.,  bk,  iii, 
ch.  4.     Dr.  S.  Hopkins'  System,  Vol.  i,  p.  130-153. 

4.  How  may  the  objections  be  answered;  (a)  That  the  Decree  destroys  free 
agency  and  responsibility ;  (b)  Supersedes  the  use  of  means ;  (c)  Makes  God  the 
author  of  Sin. 

Turrettin,  as  above.     Dick,  Lects.  34  and  36. 

/^UR  Study  now  leads  us  from  the  consideration  of  God's  na- 
^^  ture  to  His  acts.  Theologians  have  usually  classified  them 
under  three  sorts.  The  ist  are  God's  imma- 
fied  ^°^'^  ^*^'^ '^'^^^'"  nent  eternal  acts,  which  are  wholly  subjec- 
tive. These  are  the  generation  of  the  Son, 
and  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  2d,  are  God's  immanent  and 
eternal  acts  having  reference  to  objects  out  of  Himself  This 
class  includes  His  decree ;  an  unchangeable  and  eternal  act  of 
God  never  passing  over  so  as  to  cease  to  be  His  act,  yet  being 
relative  to  His  creatures.  3d,  are  God's  transient  acts  towards 
the  universe  external  to  Himself,  including  all  His  works  of 
creation  and  providence  done  in  tin>e. 

"  The  decrees  of  God  are  His  eternal  purpose  according  to 
the  counsel  of  His  will,  whereby,  for  His  own 

2.  Decree  proved  by  g-iorv,  He  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
Ood  s  mtelhgence.  *=>       •'  '     ,, 

to  pass. 

Nature  and  Revelation  concur  to  teach  us  that  God  is  a 

Being  of  infinite  intelligence,  and  of  will.     The  eternal  object 

of  His  cognition,  as  we  saw,  when  investigating  His  omniscience, 

is  nothing  less  than  the  whole  of  the  possible  ;  for  the  wisdom 

and  selection  displayed  in  the  creation  of  the  actual,  show  that 


212  SYLLABUS    A\D    NOTES 

there  was  more  before  the  Divine  Mind,  than  what  was  effectu- 
ated. But  when  we  inquire  for  the  ground  of  the  difference 
between  God's  natural  and  His  voluntary  knowledge,  we  find  no 
other  than  His  volition.  That  is,  the  only  way  in  which  any 
object  can  by  any  possibility  have  passed  from  God's  vision  of 
the  possible  into  His  foreknowledge  of  the  actual,  is  by  His 
purposing  to  effectuate  it  Himself,  or  intentionally  and  pur- 
posely to  permit  its  effectuation  by  some  other  agent  whom 
He  expressly  purposed  to  bring  into  existence.  This  is  clear 
from  this  fact.  An  effect  conceived  in  posse  only  rises  into  actu- 
ality by  virtue  of  an  efficient  cause  or  causes.  When  God  was 
looking  forward  from  the  point  of  view  of  His  original  infinite 
prescience,  there  was  but  one  cause,  Himself.  If  any  other 
cause  or  agent  is  ever  to  arise,  it  must  be  by  God's  agency.  If 
effects  are  embraced  in  God's  infinite  prescience,  which  these 
other  agents  are  to  produce,  still,  in  willing  these  other  agents 
into  existence,  with  infinite  prescience,  God  did  virtually  will 
into  existence,  or  purpose,  all  the  effects  of  which  they  were  to 
be  efficients.  That  this  prescience  is  all-embracing,  the  Scrip- 
tures assert  in  too  many  places.  (Acts  XV  :  i8;  Is.  42  :  9;  xlvi : 
10  ;  Ps.  cxlvii :  5  ;  Jno.  xxi :  17.  Hence  His  purpose  must  extend 
to  all  that  is,  or  is  to  be  effectuated. 

The  same  conclusion  follows  by  a  more  popular  reasoning 
from  God's  power ;  that  power  extends  to  all 
By  His  Power.  beings  and  events,  and   is  the   source  of  all 

existence.  Now  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  conceive  how  an 
intelligent  Being  can  set  about  producing  anything,  save  as  He 
has  the  conception  of  the  thing  to  be  produced  in  His  mind,  and 
the  intention  to  produce  it  in  His  will.  Least  of  all  can  we 
attribute  an  unintelligent  and  aimless  working  to  God.  But  if 
He  is  concerned  in  the  production  of  all  things,  and  had  an  in- 
telligent purpose  with  reference  to  all  which  He  produced,  there 
is  His  decree  ;  and  His  perfections,  as  we  shall  see,  forbid  our 
imputing  any  beginning  to  it.  So,  the  sovereignty  of  God, 
which  regulates  all  the  universe,  the  doctrine  of  His  providence, 
so  fully  asserted  in  Scripture,  and  His  concurring  perfections  of 
knowledge  and  wisdom,  show  that  He  must  have  a  purpose  as 
to  all  things.  See  Eph:  i :  1 1  ;  Ps.  xxxiii  :  11.  Other  passages, 
extending  this  purpose  specifically  to  various  departments  of 
events,  and  especially  to  those  concerning  which  the  decree  is 
most  contested,  will  be  cited  in  other  connections.  These  also 
are  appropriate  here. 

The  question  whether  God's  decrees  abide  in  Him  essen- 
tially or  accidentally,  is  but  the  same  with 
Is  the  Decree  in  God  ^^^  which  we  saw  raised  concerning  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  divine  essence.     The  scholastic 
divines,  in  order  to  defend    their  metaphysical  notion  of  this, 
said  that  God  knows,  feels,  wills,  &c.,  by  His  essence,  or  that 
God's  knowledge  is  but  His  essence  knowing,  &c.     As  we  then 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  2I3 

concluded  concerning  His  knowledge,  so  I  now  say  concerning 
His  purpose.  If  it  is  meant  that  God's  purpose  is  but  God  pur- 
posing, and  as  abstracted  from  Him,  is  but  an  abstraction,  and 
not  an  existent  thing,  I  fully  concur.  But  in  the  same  sense,  the 
purpose  of  a  human  soul  is  but  that  soul  purposing.  The  differ- 
ence of  the  two  cases  is,  that  God's  purpose  is  immanent  and 
immutable,  the  man's  evanescent  and  mutable.  To  make  the 
decree  of  God's  essence  in  any  other  sense,  is  to  give  it  essence  ; 
to  make  it  a  mode  of  the  divine  subsistence.  And  this  trenches 
hard  by  the  awful  verge  of  pantheism.  For  if  the  decree  is  but 
a  mode  of  the  divine  subsistence,  then  its  effectuation  in  the 
creature's  existence  must  still  have  the  same  essence,  and  all 
creatures  are  but  modes  of  God,  and  their  acts  of  God's  acts. 
The  decrees  are  not  accidents  with  God,  in  the  sense  that,  being 
the  result  of  God's  immutable  perfections,  they  cannot  change 
nor  fail,  but  are  as  permanent  as  God's  essence. 

The  doctrine  of  God's  decree  has  been  often  impugned  as 
.^  no  better  than  the  Stoic's  Fate.     The  modern, 

^  ^'       ^  ■  and   indeed,  the  ancient  interpreters  of  their 

doctrine,  differ  as  to  their  meaning.  Some,  as  Seneca,  seem  to 
represent  fate  as  no  other  than  the  intelligent,  eternal  purpose 
of  the  Almighty.  But  others  describe  it  as  a  physical  neces- 
sity, self-existent  and  immanent  in  the  links  of  causation  them- 
selves, by  which  effect  is  evolved  out  of  cause  according  to  a 
law  eternally  and  necessarily  existent  in  the  Universe  and  all  its 
parts.  To  this  necessity  Gods  are  as  much  subject  as  men. 
This  definition  is  more  probably  the  true  one,  because  it  agrees 
with  a  pantheistic  system,  and  such  Stoicism  was.  Now  it  is 
obvious,  that  this  fate  necessitates  God  as  much  as  man,  and 
that  not  by  the  influence  of  His  own  intelligence  and  perfections, 
but  by  an  influence  physical  and  despotic.  Whereas  our  view 
of  God's  purpose  makes  it  His  most  free,  sovereign,  wise  and 
holy  act  of  choice.  This  fate  is  a  blind  necessity  ;  God's  decree 
is  intelligent,  just,  wise  and  benevolent.  Fate  was  a  necessity, 
destroying  man's  spontaneity.  God's  decree,  in  purposing  to 
make  and  keep  man  a  free  agent,  first  produced  and  then  pro- 
tects the  exercise  of  it. 

God's  decree  "  foreordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ;"  there 

was  no  event  in  the  womb  of  the  future,  the 
God's  decree  effec-    futurition  of  wliich  was  not  made  certain  to 
tive  or  permissive.  ^     ■,  ,        .         -r->  ii-  ,i.,i-  ^    •    ^ 

God  by  it.     But  we  believe  that  this  certainty 

is  effectuated  in  different  ways,  according  to  the  different  natures 
of  God's  creatures.  One  class  of  effects  God  produces  by  His 
own  immediate  agency,  (as  creations,  regenerations,  inspirations,) 
and  by  physical  causes,  which  are  continually  and  immediately 
energized  by  His  power.  This  latter  subdivision  is  covered  by 
what  we  call  the  laws  of  material  nature.  As  to  these,  God's 
purpose  is  called  effective,  because  He  Himself  effects  the 
results,  without  the  agency  of  other  intelligent  agents.     The 


214  SYIXABUS    AND    NOTES 

other  class  of  effects  is,  the  spontaneous  acts  of  rational  free 
agents  other  than  God.  '  The  being  and  powers  of  these  are 
derived  from  and  dependent  on  God.  But  yet  He  has  been 
pleased  to  bestow  on  them  a  rational  spontaneity  of  choice, 
which  makes  them  as  truly  agents,  sources  of  self-determined 
agency,  in  their  little,  dependent  sphere  of  action,  as  though 
there  were  no  sovereign  over  them.  In  my  theory  of  the  will, 
I  admitted  and  claimed  as  a  great  truth  of  our  consciousness, 
that  man's  action  is  spontaneous,  that  the  soul  is  self-deter- 
mined (though  not  the  faculty  of  willing)  in  all  its  free  acts,  that 
the  fountain  of  the  volition  is  in  the  soul  itself;  and  that  the 
external  object  of  the  action  is  but  the  occasional  cause  of  voli- 
tion. Yet  these  spontaneous  acts  God  has  some  way  of  direct- 
ing, (only  partially  known  to  us)  and  these  are  the  objects  of  His 
permissive  decree.  By  calling  it  permissive,  we  do  not  mean 
that  their  futurition  is  not  certain  to  God  ;  or  that  He  has  not 
made  it  certain ;  we  mean  that  they  are  such  acts  as  He  effi- 
ciently brings  about  by  simply  leaving  the  spontaneity  of  other 
free  agents,  as  upheld  by  His  providence,  to  work  of  itself,  under 
incitements,  occasions,  bounds  and  limitations,  which  His  wisdom 
and  power  throw  around.  To  this  class  may  be  attributed  all 
the  acts  of  rational  free  agents,  except  such  as  are  evoked  by 
God's  own  grace,  and  especially,  all  their  sinful  acts. 

The  properties  of  God's  decree  are,  ist.  Unity.     It  is  one 

act  of  the  divine  mind ;  and  not  many.    This 

3.    Properties  —  The  yjg^y  jg  ^^  least  Suggested  by  Scripture,  which 

ciecrcG  3-  unit.  00  y  jt  ' 

speaks  of  it  usually  as  a  '(lodeacz,  a  "  pur- 
pose," a  "  counsel."  It  follows  from  the  nature  of  God.  As 
His  natural  knowledge  is  all  immediate  and  cotemporaneous, 
not  successive,  like  ours,  and  His  comprehension  of  it  all 
infinitely  complete  always,  His  purpose  founded  thereon,  must 
be  a  single,  all  comprehensive  and  simultaneous  act.  Besides,, 
the  whole  decree  is  eternal  and  immutable.  All  therefore  must 
co-exist  together  always  in  God's  miud.  Last,  God's  plan  is 
shown,  in  its  effectuation,  to  be  one  ;  cause  is  linked  with  effect, 
and  what  was  effect  becomes  cause  ;  and  influences  of  events 
on  events  interlace  with  each  other,  and  descend  in  widening 
streams  to  subsequent  events  ;  so  that  the  whole  complex  result 
is  interconnected  through  every  part.  As  astronomers  suppose 
that  the  removal  of  one  planet  from  our  system  \Vould  modify 
more  or  less  the  balance  and  orbits  of  all  the  rest,  so  the  failure 
of  one  event  in  this  plan  would  derange  the  whole,  directly  or 
indirectly.  God's  plan  is,  never  to  effectuate  a  result  apart 
from,  but  always  by,  its  own  cause.  As  the  plan  is  thus  a  unit 
in  its  effectuation,  so  it  must  have  been  in  its  conception.  Most 
of  the  errors,  which  have  arisen  in  the  doctrine,  have  come 
from  the  mistake  of  imputing  to  God  that  apprehension  of  His 
purpose  in  successive  parts,  to  which  the  limitations  of  our  minds 
confine  us,  in  conceiving  of  it. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  215 

2.  The  decree  is  eternal.  One  may  object :  that  God  must 
exist  before  His  decree,  the  subject  before 
ob[ecdot'.'''''''™^^~  its  act.  I  reply,  He  exists  before  it  only  in" 
the  order  of  production,  not  in  time.  For 
intellection  is  His  essential  state,  and  His  comprehension  of  His 
purpose  may  be  as  eternal  as  Himself.  The  sun's  rays  are  from 
the  sun,  but  measuring  by  duration,  there  were  rays  as  early  as 
there  was  a  sun.  It  has  been  objected  that  some  parts  of  the 
decree  are  consequent  on  other  parts,  and  cannot  therefore  be 
equally  early.  I  reply,  the  real  sequence  is  only  in  the  events 
as  effectuated,  not  in  the  decree  of  them.  The  latter  is  a  co- 
existent unit  with  God,  and  there  is  no  sequence  of  parts  in  it, 
except  in  our  feeble  minds.  It  is  said  the  comprehension  of  the 
possible  must  have  gone  before  in  the  divine  mind,  in  order  that 
the  determination  to  effectuate  that  part  which  commended  itself 
to  the  divine  wisdom,  might  follow.  I  reply :  God  does  not 
need  to  learn  things  deductively,  or  to  view  them  piecemeal  and 
successively  ;  but  His  infinite  mind  sees  all  by  immediate  intu- 
ition and  together ;  and  in  seeing,  concludes.  The  most  plau- 
sible objection  is,  that  many  of  God's  purposes  must  have  been 
formed  in  time,  because  suspended  on  the  acts  of  other  free 
agents  to  be  done  in  time  ;  e.  g.,  Deut.  xxviii :  2,  15  ;  Jer.  xviii : 
10.  The  answer  is,  that  all  these  acts,  though  contingent  to 
man,  were  certainly  foreknown  to  God. 

Having  thus  cleared  away  objections,  we  might  argue  very 
Its  Eternity  Argued    simply  :  If  God  had  an  intention  to  act,  before 
from  God's  perfections    each  act,  when  was  that  intention  born  ?     No 
and  Scnpture.  answer  will  be  found  tenable  till  we  run  back 

to  eternity.  For,  God's  knowledge  was  always  perfect,  so  that 
He  finds  out  nothing  new,  to  become  the  occasion  of  a  new 
plan.  His  wisdom  was  always  perfect,  to  give  Him  the  same 
guidance  in  selecting  means  and  ends.  His  power  was  always 
infinite,  to  prevent  any  failure,  or  successful  resistance,  which 
would  cause  Him  to  resort  to  new  expedients.  His  character  is 
immutable ;  so  that  He  will  not  causelessly  change  His  own 
mind.  There  is  therefore  nothing  to  account  for  any  addition 
to  His  original  plan.  But  we  may  reason  more  comprehensively. 
It  is,  as  we  saw,  only  God's  purpose,  which  causes  a  part  of  the 
possible  to  become  the  actual.  As  the  whole  of  God's  scientia 
siniplicis  intelligentios  was  present  to  Him  from  eternity,  a  reason 
is  utterly  wanting  in  Him,  why  any  part  of  the  decree  should  be 
formed  later  than  any  other  part. 

And  to  this  agree  the  Scriptures  :  Is.  xlvi :  lO  ;  Matt,  xxv : 
34 ;  I  Cor.  ii :  7  ;  Eph.  i :  4 ;  2  Thess.  ii :  13;  2  Tim.  i :  9 ;  i 
Pet.  i  :  20.  On  these,  two  remarks  should  be  made.  Although 
they  do  not  expressly  assert  the  eternity  of  all  God's  decrees, 
several  of  them  do  assert  the  eternity  of  the  very  ones  most 
impugned,  His  decrees  concerning  events  dependent  on  free 
agent.     In  the  language  of  Scripture,  to  say  a  thing  was  done 


2l6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

""  before  the  formation  of  the  world,"  is  to  say  it  is  from  eternity, 
because  with  the  creation  of  the  universe  began  successive  dura- 
tion. All  before  this  is  the  measureless  eternity.  In  conclusion, 
I  add  the  express  assertion  of  Acts  xv :   i8. 

3.  The  decree  is  universal,  embracing  absolutely  all  creatures, 

_,     ,  .        ,   and  all  their  actions.     No  nominal  Christians 

The  decree  universal.  i.i.i.i-  .  ..1  ^         c     r 

contest  this,   except   as   to   the  acts   of    free 

agents,  which  the  Arminians,  but  especially  the  Socinians, 
exempted  from  God's  sovereign  decree,  and  the  latter  heretics 
from  His  foreknowledge.  We  have  seen  that  God's  foreknowl- 
edge is  founded  on  His  foreordination.  If  then  we  prove  that 
God  has  a  perfect  foreknowledge  of  all  future  events,  we  shall 
have  virtually  proved  that  He  has  foreordained  them.  The 
Socinians  are  more  consistent  than  the  Arminians  here,  in  that 
they  deny  both  to  God.  They  define  God's  omniscience  as  His 
knowledge  of  all  the  cognizable.  All  the  future  acts  of  free- 
agents,  say  they,  cannot  be  foreknown,  because  a  multitude  of 
them  are  purely  contingent ;  the  volitions  springing  from  a  will 
in  equilibrio.  It  is  therefore  no  derogation  to  God's  under- 
standing, that  He  does  not  foreknow  all  of  them,  any  more  than 
it  would  be  to  the  goodness  of  an  eye,  that  it  does  not  see  what 
as  yet  does  not  exist.  When  free  agents  perform  acts  unfore- 
seen to  God,  His  wisdom,  say  they,  provides  Him  with  a  multi- 
tude of  resources,  by  which  He  overrules  the  result,  and  still 
makes  them  concur  substantially  (not  absolutely)  with  His  wise 
and  good  plans. 

Now,  in  opposition  to  all  this,  we  have  shown  that  the  future 

,    ,   ,      ,       ,. .       volitions    of  free    agents    are    none    of  them 

Includes  the  volitions  ,1  ■,  °  ,  ,         , 

of  free  agents.  among  the  unknowable ;  because  none  con- 

tingent to  God.  We  argue  farther  that  God 
must  have  foreordained,  and  so  foreknown  all  events,  including 
these  volitions:  (a  )  Because,  else,  His  providence  would  not  be 
sovereign,  and  His  independence  and  omnipotence  would  be 
impugned.  '  We  have  seen  that  the  course  of  events  is  a  chain, 
in  which  every  link  has  a  direct  or  remote  connection  with  every 
other.  Into  a  multitude  of  physical  events,  the  volitions  of  free 
agents  enter  as  part  causes ;  and  if  God  has  not  a  control  over 
all  these,  He  could  not  have  over  the  dependent  results.  His 
government  would  be  a  capricious  patchwork  of  new  expedi- 
ents. Beeause  He  could  not  control  everything.  He  would  not 
be  absolutely  sure  of  controlling  anything,  for  all  are  inter- 
dependent, (b.)  God's  knowledge  would  receive  continual 
accretions,  and  hence  His  feelings  and  plans  would  change  with 
them  ;  His  immutability  would  be  gone,  (c.)  Prophecy  con- 
cerning the  acts  of  free  agents  would  have  been  impossible. 
For  unless  all  the  collateral  links  of  causation  are  under  God's 
control,  it  may  be  that  He  will  be  unable  to  control  a  single 
result.  But  a  multitude  of  the  acts  of  the  proudest,  most  arro- 
gant and  rebellious  men  were  exactly  and  confidently  predicted, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  21/ 

of  your  Nebuchadnezzars,  Pharaohs,  Cyrus,  &c.,  &c.  To  this 
last  agree. the  Scriptures:  Eph.  i:  lO,  ii;  Rom.  xi :  33;  Heb. 
iv :  13;  Rom.  ix:  15,  18;  Acts  xv :  18;  xvii  :  26;  Job  xiv  :  5; 
Is.  xlvi :  10.  Men's  voHtions,  especially  including  the  evil. 
Eph.  ii :  10;  Acts  ii :  23;  iv  :  27,28;  Ps.  Ixxvi :  10;  Prov.  xvi : 
4,33;  Dan.  iv:  34,  35;  Gen.  xlv  :  5;  Is.  x:  5,  15;  Josh,  xi  : 
20;  Prov.  XX :  24;  Is.  xlv:  7;  Amos  iii :  6;  Ps.  cvii :  17;  i 
Sam.  ii  :  2$;  2  Sam.  xvi  :  10;  i  Kgs.  xii :  15,24;  2Kgs.  xxvi: 
2,  3,  20.  Add  all  those  texts  where  the  universality  of  God's 
providential  control  is  asserted  :  for  Providence  is  but  the  exe- 
cution of  the  decree. 

4.  Nearly  akin  to  this  is  the  remark  that  the  decree  is 
efficient.  By  this  I  mean  that  God's  purpose 
The  decree  efficient.  ^^  -^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^  absolutely  sure  to  be  effectu- 
ated. Nearly  all  the  arguments  adduced  under  the  last  head 
apply  here  :  God's  sovereignty,  God's  wisdom.  His  independ- 
ence, and  the  dependence  of  all  other  things  on  Him,  the 
"  immutability  of  His  counsel,"  and  of  His  knowledge  and  other 
attributes,  the  certainty  of  His  predictions,  all  demand  that 
"  His  counsel  shall  stand,  and  He  shall  do  all  His  pleasure." 
See  Matt,  xxvi :  54 ;  Luke  xxii  :  22  ;  Acts  iv  :  28  ;  Prov.  xvi : 
33 ;  Matt,  x :  29,  30.  Here  we  see  that  things  most  minute, 
most  contingent  in  our  view  of  them,  and  most  voluntary,  are 
yet  efficaciously  produced  by  God. 

The  Arminians  have  too  much  reverence  for  God's  perfec- 
tions to  limit  His  knowledge  as  to  the  actions 
Over  free   agents    ^^  f^^^  agents.     But  they  endeavor  to  evade 
the  inevitable  conclusion  of  the  decree,  and 
to  save  their  favorite  doctrine  of  conditional  purposes,  by  limit- 
ing   His    concern    with    the    acts,   and    especially    sins,  of  free 
agents,  to  a  mere  foreknowledge,  permission,  and  intention  to 
make  the  permitted  act  a  condition  of  some  part  of  the  decree. 
I  urge  that   they   who   concede   so   much,   cannot   consistently 
stop  there.     If  the  sinful  act  (to  make  the  least  possible  con- 
cession to  the  Calvinist,)  of  the  free  agent  has  been  from  eter- 
nity  certainly   forseen  ^  by   God,  then   its   occurrence   must    be 
certain.     But  in  this  universe,  nothing  comes  without  a  cause ; 
there  must  therefore  be  some  ground  for  the  certainty  of  its 
occurrence.     And  it  is  upon  that  ground  that  God's  foreknowl- 
edge of  it  rests.     Do  yn^n  ask  what  that  ground  is  ?     I  reply 
by  asking:     How  does  God's  knowledge  of  the  possible  pass 
into  His  knowledge  of  the  actual?     Only  by  His  determining 
to  secure  the  occurrence  of  all  the  latter.     Conceive  of  God  as 
just  now  about  to  create  a  free  agent,  according  to   His  plan, 
and  launch  him  out   on   his   path   of    freedom.     If    God   fore- 
knows all  that  the  free  agent  will  choose  to  do,  if   created  ; 
does  He  not  purpose  the  doing  of  all  this,  when   He  creates 
him?     To  deny  this  is  a  contradiction.     We    may  not  be  able 
to  see  fully  how  God  certainly  procures  the  doing  of  such  acts 


2l8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

by  free  agents,  still  leaving  them  to  act  purely  from  their  own 
spontaneity ;  but  we  cannot  deny  that  He  does,  without  over- 
throwing His  sovereignty  and  foreknowledge.  Such  events 
may  be  wholly  contingent  to  man;  but  to  God  none  of  them 
can  be  contingent ;  else  all  the  parts  of  His  decree,  connected  as 
effects  with  them  as  causes,  would  be  in  the  same  degree  contin- 
gent. For  instance  :  if  Christ  be  not  "  taken,  and  by  wicked 
hands  crucified  and  slain,"  then,  unless  God  is  to  proceed  by 
rupturing  the  natural  ties  of  cause  and  effect,  all  the  natural 
and  historical  consequences  of  Christ's  sacrifice  must  also  fail, 
down  to  the  end  of  time  and  through  eternity.  If  God  is  to 
be  able  to  prevent  all  that  failure,  we  must  ascribe  to  Him 
power  to  make  sure  by  His  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowl- 
edge that  the  wicked  hands  shall  not  fail  to  take  and  slay  the 
victim.  The  same  argument  may  be  extended  to  every  sinful 
act,  from  which  the  adorable  wisdom  of  God  has  evolved  good 
consequences.  When  we  remind  ourselves  how  moral  causes 
interlace  and  spread  as  time  flows  on,  we  see  that,  unless  the 
decree  extends  to  sinful  acts,  making  them  also  certain,  God 
will  be  robbed,  by  our  day,  of  nearly  all  His  providential 
power  over  free  agents,  and  His  foreknowledge  of  their  doings. 
As  this  branch  of  the  decree  is  most  impugned  (by  Arminians 
and  Cumberland  Presbyterians)  let  it  be  fortified  by  these 
additional  Scriptures,  i.  They  assert  that  God's  purpose  is 
concerned  in  such  sins  as  those  of  Eli's  sons,  i  Sam.  ii :  25, 
of  Shimei,  2  Sam.  xvi :  10,  ii,  of  Ahithophel,  2  Sam.  xvii  :  14, 
of  the  Chaldeans,  2  Kings,  xxvi :  2,  3,  20,  of  Jeroboam,  i  Kings, 
xii :  15,  24,  of  Amaziah,  2  Chron.  xxv:  20,  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
Jer.  xxv:  9 :  Ii :  20,  of  Pilate  and  Herod,  Acts  iii:  17,  18.  2d. 
The  Scriptures  say  that  God,  in  some  way,  moves  men  to 
actions,  such  as  Hadad,  the  Edomite,  and  Rezon,  the  son  of 
Eliada,  against  Solomon,  i  Kings  xi :  14,  23.  David  to  num- 
ber Israel,  2  Sam.  xxiv  :  i.  Pul  and  Tiglath-pileser,  i.  Chron.  v: 
26.  The  Medes  against  them,  Isaiah  xiii :  17.  The  Egyptians, 
Ps.  cv :  25.  The  secular  Popish  princes.  Rev.  xvii:  17.  3d. 
The  Bible  represents  God  as  being  concerned,  by  His  purpose 
and  providence,  in  men's  self-deceptions.  Job  xii:  16;  Ezek. 
xiv :  9  ;  2  Thess.  ii :  11,  12.  4th.  God  is  described  as  "  hardening  " 
sinners'  hearts,  in  order  to  effectuate  some  righteous  purpose. 
Isaiah  vi :  9,  10;  xxix :  lo;  Rom.  xi :  7,  8  ;  Exod.  iv:  21,  ct 
passim.  Rom.  9:  18.  How  can  all  those  declarations  be 
explained  away  ?  We  do  not,  of  course,  advance  them  as 
.shewing  God  to  be  the  author  of  sin,  but  they  can  mean  no 
less  than  that  His  purpose  determines,  and  His  providence  sup- 
erintends the  occurrence  of  sins,  for  His  own  holy  ends. 

We  are  now   prepared   to   approach   the  proposition,  that 

^,       ,  God's  act  in    forming   His   decree   is   uncon- 

5.    1  he    decree    not      i-.-  1  ^i  •  i.       u         1  u        ur- 

conditional.  ditioiied    on   anythmg    to    be    done    by    His 

creatures.     In  another  sense,  a  multitude  of 


OF    LECTURES    IX    THEOLOGY.  219- 

the  things  decreed  are  conditional ;  God's  whole  plan  is  a  wise 
unit,  linking  means  with  ends,  and  causes  with  effects.  In 
regard  to  each  of  these  effects,  the  occurrence  of  it  is  condi- 
tional on  the  presence  of  its  cause,  and  is  made  so  dependent 
by  God's  decree  itself.  But  while  the  events  decreed  are  con- 
ditional, God's  act  in  forming  the  decree  is  not  conditional,  on 
anything  which  is  to  occur  in  time  ;  because  in  the  case  of  each 
dependent  event.  His  decree  as  much  determined  the  occur- 
rence of  the  cause,  as  of  its  effect.  And  this  is  true  equally  of 
those  events  in  His  plan  dependent  on  the  free  acts  of.  free 
agents.  No  better  illustration  can  be  given,  of  the  mode  in 
which  God  decrees  dependent  or  conditioned  events,  absolutely, 
by  equally  decreeing  the  conditions  through  which  they  are  to 
be  brought  about,  than  Acts  xxvii :  22  with  31.  The  Armin- 
ian  admits  that  all  such  intermediate  acts  of  men  were  eternally 
foreseen  of  God,  and  thus  embraced  in  His  plan  as  conditions : 
but  not  foreordained.  We  reply :  if  they  were  certainly  fore- 
seen, their  occurrence  was  certain;  if  this  was  certain,  then 
there  must  have  been  something  to  determine  that  certainty ; 
and  that  something  was  either  God's  wise  foreordination,  or  a 
blind  physical  fate.     Let  the  Arminian  choose. 

Here  enters  the  theory  of  scientia  media  in  God  ;  and  here 
.  we  detect  one  of  the  objects  for  which  it  is 

invented.  The  student  is  referred  to  the 
demonstration  (on  p.  157-9,)  o^  i^^  falsehood.  Were  the  free 
acts  of  moral  accents  conting-ent  to  God,  the  conclusion  of  the 
Socinian  would  be  true,  that  they  are  not  certainly  cognizable, 
even  to  an  infinite  mind.  Arminians,  who  recoil  from  this 
irreverent  position,  refer  us  to  the  infinitude  of  God's  mind  to 
account  for  His  having  certain  prescience  of  all  these  contingent 
acts,  inconceivable  as  it  is  to  us.  But  I  reply :  it  is  worse  than 
inconceivable,  absolutely  contradictory.  .  What  does  the  Armin- 
ian propose  as  the  medium,  or  middle  premise,  of  this  inferen- 
tial knowledge  in  God  ?  His  insight  into  the  dispositions  of  all 
creatures  enables  Him,  they  suppose,  to  infer  how  they  will  act 
in  the  presence  of  the  conditions  which  His  omniscience  fore- 
sees, will  surround  them  at  any  given  time.  But  it  is  obvious, 
this  supposes  such  an  efficient  and  causative  connection  between 
disposition  and  volition,  as  the  Calvinist  asserts,  and  the  Armin- 
ian denies.  So  that,  if  volitions  are  contingent,  the  middle 
term  is  annihilated.  We  ask  then,  does  mental  perfection 
prompt  a  rational  being  to  draw  a  certain  inference  after  the 
sole  and  essential  premise  thereof  is  gone  ?  Does  infinitude 
help  any  mind  to  this  baseless  logic  ?  Is  this  a  compliment,  or 
an  insult  to  the  divine  intelligence  ?  To  every  plain  mind  it  is 
clear,  that  whether  an  intellect  be  greater  or  smaller,  it  would 
be  its  imperfection  and  not  its  glor}'.  to  infer  without  a  ground 
of  inference. 

Hence,  it  follows,  that  the  eternity  of  the  decree,  already 


■220  SYLLABUS    AND    KOTES 

proved,  offers  us  a  demonstration  against  a  conditional  decree 
in  God.  For,  scieiitia  media  of  a  contingent  act  of  the  creature 
being  impossible,  whenever  an  event  decreed  was  conditioned 
on  such  contingent,  creature  act,  as  second  cause,  it  might  have 
been,  that  God  would  be  obliged  to  wait  until  the  creature 
acted,  before  He  could  form  a  positive  purpose  as  to  the  event. 
Therefore  we  must  hold,  this  creature  act  never  was  contingent 
to  God,  since  His  purpose  about  it  was  eternal ;  and  the 
effect  was  foreordained  in  foreordaining  the  condition  of  its 
production. 

The  immutability  of  God's  decree  argues  the  same,  and  in 
the  same  way.  If  the  condition  on  which  His  results  hung 
were  truly  contingent,  then  it  might  turn  out  in  one  or  another 
of  several  different  ways.  Hence  it  would  always  be  possible 
that  God  might  have  to  change  His  plans. 

It  is  equally  plain  that  His  sovereignty  would  no  longer  be 
entire :  but  God  would  be  dependent  on  His  creatures  for  abil- 
ity to  effectuate  many  of  His  plans ;  and  some  might  fail  in 
spite  of  all  He  could  do.  I  have  already  indicated  that  God's 
foreknowledge  of  the  conditions,  and  of  all  dependent  on  them, 
could  not  possibly  be  certain.  For  if  a  thing  is  not  certain  to 
occur,  a  certain  expectation  that  it  will  occur,  is  an  erroneous 
one.  Hence,  the  Arminian  should  be  driven  by  consistency  to 
the  conclusion  of  the  Socinian.  limiting  God's  knowledge. 

But  Arminians  are  exceedingly  fond  of  saying,  that  the 
dream  of  absolute  decrees  is  a  metaphysical  invention  not  sus- 
tained by  Scripture,  and  only  demanded  by  consistency  with 
other  unhallowed,  human  speculation.  Hence  I  shall  take 
pains,  as  on  other  points,  to  show  that  it  is  expressly  the  doc- 
trine of  Scripture.  Here  may  be  cited  all  the  proofs  by  which 
I  showed  that  the  decree  is  universal  and  efficacious.  For  the 
very  conception  of  the  matter  which  I  have  inculcated  is,  that 
events  are  conditioned  on  events,  but  that  the  decree  is  not ; 
because  it  embraces  the  conditions  as  efficaciously  as  the 
results.  See  also  Is.  xlvi :  lo,  1 1  :  Rom.  ix  :  1 1  ;  Matt,  xi :  25, 
26;  Eph.  i:  5  ahd  II  ;  Is.  xl:i3;  Rom.  ix  :  15-18 ;  Acts  ii : 
2^  ;  iii:  18  ;   Gen.  1:  20. 

His  decree  «includes  means  and  conditions.  2  Thess.  ii : 
13  ;   I  Pet.  i :  2  ;  Phil,  ii :  13  ;  Eph.  ii :  8  ;  2  Tim.  ii :  25. 

But  against  this  view  objections  are  urged  with  great 
T~,      ,,.       ,    ^   ,    clamour    and    confidence.      They   may    be 

Does  this  make  God  j  •    ,      ^  ._i     ^     i        i    .        i 

theauthor  of  sin?  Summed  up  mto  two  :    that  absolute  decrees 

make  God  the  author  of  sin  ;  and  that  the 
Scriptures  contradict  our  view  by  displaying  many  conditional 
threats  and  promises  of  God,  e.  g.,  Ezek,  xviii :  21  ;  Ps.  Ixxxi : 
^3-  H;  &c.,  &c.,  and  some  cases  in  which  decrees  were  act- 
ually revoked  and  changed  in  consequence  of  men's  conduct, 
as  I  Sam.  xiii  113;  Luke  vii :  30. 

That  God  is  not,  and  cannot  be  the  author  of  sin,  is  plain 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  22  T 

from  express  Scripture,  Jas.  i :  13,  7  ;  i  J  no.  i :  5  ;  Eccl.  vii :  29; 
Ps.  xcii :  15  ;  from  God's  law,  which  prohibit;-  all  sin  ;  from  the 
holiness  of  His  nature,  which  is  incapable  of  it;  and  from  the 
nature  of  sin  itself,  which  must  be  man's  ov/n  free  activity,  or 
else  is  not  responsible  and  guilty.  But  I  remark,  1st,  that  so 
far  as  the  great  mystery  of  God's  permission  of  sin  enters  into 
this  objection,  our  minds  are  incapable  of  a  complete  explan- 
tion.  But  this  incapacity  is  precisely  the  same,  whatever 
scheme  we  adopt  for  accounting  for  it,  unless  we  deny  to  God 
complete  foreknowledge  and  power.  2.  The  simple  fact  that 
God  clearly  foresaw  every  sin  the  creature  would  commit,  and 
yet  created  him,  is  attended  with  all  the  difficulty  which 
attaches  to  our  view.  But  that  foresight  the  Arminian  admits. 
By  determining  to  create  the  creature,  foreknowing  that  he 
would  sin,  God  obviously  determined  the  occurrence  of  the 
sin,  through  the  creature's  free  agency ;  for  at  least  He  could 
have  refrained  from  creating  him.  But  this  is  just  as  strong  as 
our  view  of  the  case  involves.  The  Arminian  pleads :  Yea, 
but  God  determined  to  create  a  creature  who.  He  foresaw, 
would  sin,  not  for  the  sake  of  sin,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  good 
and  holy  ends  connected  therewith.  I  reply,  3d.  Well,  the 
very  same  plea  avails  for  us.  We  can  say  just  as  consistently : 
God  purposed  to  produce  these  free  agents,  to  sustain  their 
free  agency  untrammeled,  to  surround  them  with  outward  cir- 
cumstances of  a  given  kind,  to  permit  that  free  agency,  moved 
by  those  circumstances  as  occcasional  causes,  to  exert  itself  in 
a  multitude  of  acts,  some  sinful,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  sin, 
but  for  the  sake  of  some  good  and  holy  results  which  His^ 
infinite  wisdom  has  seen  best  to  connect  therewith.  Last,  in 
the  sinful  act,  the  agency  and  choice  is  the  sinner's  alone ; 
because  the  inscrutable  modes  God  has  for  effectuating  the 
certain  occurrence  of  His  volitions  never  cramp  or  control  the 
creature's  spontaneity  :  as  consciousness  testifies. 

The   second   class  of   objections  Arminians  also  advance 
Objected  that  God's    with  great  Confidence  ;  saying  that  unless  we~ 
threats  and   promises    are  willing  to  charge   God   with   insincerity,. 
are  conditional.  f^jg  conditional  promise  or  threat   must  be 

received  by  us  as  an  exact  disclosure  of  His  real  purpose. 
Let  us  test  this  in  any  case,  such  as  our  adversaries  usually 
select:  e.  g..  Is.  i:  19;  "If  ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall 
eat  the  good  of  the  land."  Did  not  God  know,  at  the  time  He 
uttered  these  words,  that  they  would  not  be  willing  and  obedi- 
ent? See  ch.  vi :  10-12.  Was  it  not  His  fixed  intention,  at 
that  very  moment  to  deprive  them  of  the  good  of  the  land,  in 
consequence  of  their  clearly  foreseen  disobedience?  Here 
then  is  the  very  same  ground  for  the  pretended  charge  of  insin- 
cerity in  God.  The  truth  is,  that  God's  preceptive  threats  and 
promises  are  not  a  disclosure  of  His  secret  purpose.  But  the 
distinction  between  His  secret  and  revealed  will  is  one  which  is 


222  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

inevitably  made  by  every  thinking  mind,  and  is  absolutely  una- 
voidable, unless  man's  mind  can  become  as  capacious  as  God's. 
And  see  Deut.  xxix  :  29.  Nor  does  this  impugn  God's  sincerity. 
The  sophism  of  the  Arminian  is  just  that,  in  this  case,  already 
pointed  out;  confounding  conditionality  of  events  decreed, 
with  conditionality  of  God's  decree.  God  purposed,  in  this 
case,  that  the  event,  Israel's  punishment,  should  be  conditioned 
on  the  other  event,  their  disobedience.  So  that  his  conditional 
promise  was  perfectly  truthful.  But  He  also  purposed,  secretly, 
to  withhold  that  undeserved  constraining  grace,  which  might 
have  prevented  Israel's  disobedience,  so  that  the  condition,  and 
the  thing  conditioned  on  it  should  both  come  to  pass.  Again, 
the  idea  that  God  has  revocable  decrees,  is  as  utterly  incom- 
patible with  the  foreknowledge  of  man's  free  acts,  as  with  their 
foreordination.  When  it  is  said  that  the  Pharisees  rejected  the 
counsel  of  God  concerning  themselves,  the  word  counsel  means 
but  precept,  cf  Ps.  cvii:  1 1  ;   Prov.  i :  25,  30  ;   Rev.  iii :  18. 

6.  The    freedom  of  God's  decree  follows  from  what  has 

been  already  argued.     If  it  was  eternal,  then, 
The  decree  free.  ^^j^^^  j^  ^^^  formed,  there  was  no  Being  out- 

side of  Himself  to  constrain  or  be  the  motive  of  it.  If  abso- 
lute, then  God  was  induced  to  it  by  no  act  of  other  agents,  but 
only  by  His  own  perfections.  And  this  leads  us  to  remark, 
that  when  we  say  the  decree  is  free,  we  do  not  mean  God  acts 
in  forming  it,  in  disregard  of  His  own  perfections,  but  under 
the  guidance  of  His  own  perfections  alone.  Eph.  i:  5.  Rom. 
xi :  34. 

7.  The  wisdom  of  God's  decree  is  manifest  from  the  wis- 
dom of  that  part  of  His  plan  which  has  been  unfolded. 
Although  much  there  is  inscrutable  to  us,  we  see  enough  to 
convince  us  that  all  is  wise.     Rom.  xi :  33,  34. 

Of  the  general  objections   against  the   decree  of  God,  to 

which  I  called  your  attention,  two  remain  to 

4.  Does  the  decree  su-  ^    noticed.     One  is,  that  if  it  were  true,  it 

would  supersede  the  use  of  all  means.     "  If 

what  is  to  be  will  be,  why  trouble  ourselves  with  the  useless  and 

vain  attempt  either  to  procure  or  prevent  it?" 

This  popular  objection  is  exceedingly  shallow.  The  answer 
is,  that  the  use  of  the  means,  where  free  agents  are  concerned, 
is  just  as  much  included  in  the  decree,  as  the  result.  God's 
purpose  to  institute  and  sustain  the  laws  of  causation  in  nature, 
is  the  very  thing  which  gives  efficacy  to  means,  instead  of  taking 
it  away.  Further,  both  Scripture  aud  consciousness  tell  us,  that 
in  using  man's  acts  as  means,  God's  infinite  skill  does  it  always 
without  marring  his  freedom  in  the  least. 

But  it  is   objected,   second,  that  if  there   were  an  absolute 

decree,  man  could  not  be  free  ;  and  so,  could 

Is  It  inconsistent  with         .1  •      -i  1  -n    *.  „-^      „^    ^.^A 

free  agency  ?  "^t  be  responsible.      But  consciousness  and 

God's  word  assure  us  we  are  free.     Treph-, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  223 

the  facts  cannot  be  incompatible  because  Scripture  most  un- 
doubtedly asserts  both,  and  both  together.  See  Is.  x :  5  to  15  ; 
Acts  ii :  23.  Second,  feeble  man  procures  free  acts  from  his 
fellow-man,  by  availing  himself  of  the  power  of  circumstances 
as  inducements  to  his  known  dispositions,  and  yet  he  regards 
the  agent  as  free  and  responsible,  and  the  agent  so  regards 
himself.  If  man  can  do  this  sometimes,  why  may  not  an 
infinite  God  do  it  all  the  time  ?  Third,  If  there  is  anything 
about  absolute  decrees  to  impinge  upon  man's  freedom  of 
choice,  it  must  be  in  their  mode  of  execution,  for  God's  merely 
having  such  a  purpose  in  His  secret  breast  could  affect  man  in 
no  way.  But  Scripture  and  consciousness  assure  us  that  God 
executes  this  purpose  as  to  man's  acts,  not  against,  but  through 
and  with  man's  own  free  will.  In  producing  spiritually  good 
acts.  He  "  worketh  in  man  to  will  and  to  do  ;"  and  determines 
that  he"shali  be  willing  in  the  day  of  His  power."  And  in 
bringing  about  bad  acts,  He  simply  leaves  the  sinner  in  circum- 
stances such  that  he  does,  of  himself  only,  yet  certainly,  choose 
the  wrong.  Last:  This  objection  implies  that  man's  acts  of 
choice  could  not  be  free,  unless  contingent  and  uncaused.  But 
we  have  seen  that  this  theory  of  the  will  is  false,  foolish,  and 
•especially  destructive  to  rational  liberty. 


LECTURE  XXI. 

PREDESTINATION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Wherein  are  the  terms  Predestination  and  Election  distinguished  from  God's 
Decree?  What  the  usage  and  meaning  of  the  original  words,  TLpoypuu/.g,  EK?My?/  and 
cognates? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv.  Qu.  7.     Dick,  Lect.  35.     Conf.  of  F.,  ch.  3. 

2.  Prove  that  there  is  a  definite  election  of  individual  men  to  salvation,  whose 
number  can  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  I2,  i6.  Conf.  of  F.,  ch.  3.  Calv.  Inst.,  bk.  iii.  chs. 
21,  22.  Witsius,  bk.  iii,  ch.  4.  Dick,  Lect  35.  Hill's  Div.,  bk.  iv.  ch.  7. 
Burnet  on  39  Articles,  Art.  xvii.  Knapp,  §  xxxii.  Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch. 
26,  §  I,  2.  ' 

3.  Has  the  decree  of  predestination  the  qualities  predicated  of  the  whole  decree? 
Dick,  Lect.  35. 

4.  Does  predestination  embrace  angels  as  well  as  men  ;  and  with  the  same  kind 
of  decree  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  8. 

5.  State  the  differences  between  the  Sublapsarian  and  Supralapsarian  schemes. 
Which  is  correct  ? 

Dick,  Lect.  35.     Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  9, 14  and  18,  \  1-5.     Burnet,  as  above. 

'IX/'HILE  God's  decree   is  His  purpose   as  to  all  things.  His 
predestination  may  be  defined  to  be  His  purpose  concern- 
ing the    everlasting    destiny  of    His  rational 
I.  Definitions.  creatures.     His   election    is    His   purpose    of 


224  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

saving  eternally  some  men  and  angels.  Election  and  repro- 
bation are  both  included  in  predestination.  The  word  -jioonca- 
/w;,  the  proper  original  for  predestination,  does  not  occur  in  this 
connection  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  the  kindred  verb  and 
participle  are  found  in  the  following  passages,  describing  God's 
foreyrdination  of  the  religious  state  or  acts  of  persons;  Acts 
iv:  28;  Rom.  viii :  29,  30;  Eph.  i:  5;  Luke  xxii  :  22.  That 
this  predetermination  of  men's  privileges  and  destinies  by  God 
includes  the  reprobation  of  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the  election 
of  the  saints,  will  be  established  more  fully  in  the  next  lecture. 

The  words  -ooyvojacz  Tzpo-fcvwaxco,  as  applied  to  this  subject 
mean  more  than  a  simple,  inactive  cognition  of  the  future  state 
of  men  by  God,  a  positive  or  active  selection.  This  is  proved 
by  the  Hebraistic  usage  of  this  class  of  words :  as  in  i  Thess. 
y  :  12;  Jno.  x:  14;  Ps.  i :  6;  2  Tim.  ii :  19,  and  by  the  follow- 
ing passages,  where  the  latter  meaning  is  indisputable  :  Rom. 
xi :  2  ;  I  Peter  i :  20.  This  will  appear  extremely  reasonable, 
when  we  remember  that  according  to  the  order  of  God's  acts^ 
His  foreknowledge  is  the  effect  of  His  foreordination. 

^ Eyj.oyij,  ixAsya)  are  used  for  various  kinds  of  selection  to 
office,  &c.,  and  once  by  metonymy,  for  the  body  of  Elect,  Rom. 
xi :  7.  When  applied  to  God's  call  to  religious  privilege  or  tO' 
salvation,  it  is  sometimes  inclusive  of  effectual  calling ;  as  Jno. 
XV  :  16,  19.  Some  would  make  this  all  of  election  :  but  that  it 
means  a  prior  and  different  selection  is  plain  in  Matt,  xx :  16;  2 
Thess.  ii:  13.  The  words  Tzooi'kac:,  Rom.  viii:  28;  ix :  li; 
Eph.  i :  1 1  ,  and  zdaao),  Acts  xiii :  48,  very  clearly  express  a 
foreordination  of  God  as  to  man's  religious  state. 

"  By  the  decree    of   God,   for  the   manifestation  of    His 
own  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predes- 

roposi  ions.  tinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore- 

ordained to  everlasting  death." 

"  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  foreor- 
dained, are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their 
number  is  so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  either  n- 
creased  or  diminished." 

To  discuss  this  thesis,  first,  as  to  men.     I  would  argue  first : 

_    ^     .  From  the  general  doctrine  of  the  decree.    The 

Predestination  of  men  j^^„        •  •  1        rr/^ji  i.i-         j. 

proved.    From  decree.  Q^^ree  IS  universal.     If  God  has  anythmg  to 

do  with  the  sinner's  redemption,  it  must  be 
embraced  in  that  decree.  But  salvation  is  everywhere  attribu- 
ted to  God,  as  His  work.  He  calls.  He  justifies.  He  regene- 
rates. He  keeps  us  by  faith  unto  salvation.  He  sanctifies.  All 
the  arguments  drawn  from  God's  attributes  of  wisdom,  infinite 
knowledge,  omnipotence,  and  immutability,  in  support  of  His 
eternal  decree,  show  that  His  agency  in  saving  the  sinners  who 
are  saved,  is  a  purposed  one,  and  that  this  purpose  is  eternal. 
Ps.  xxxiii:  II;  Numb,  xxiii :  19;  Mai.  iii :  6;  Jas.  i:  17; 
Heb.  vi :   17. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  22$ 

2.  The  same  tiling  follows  from  what  Scripture  and  observation 
.  .  teach  us  of  the  heart  of  all  men.     We  are  by 

rom  ongma  .  mature  ungodly,  hostile  to  God,  and  His  law, 
blind  in  mind,  and  certainly  determined  to  worldliness  in  prefer- 
ence to  godliness,  by  a  native  disposition.  Hence,  no  man 
Cometh  to  Christ,  except  the  Father  who  hath  sent  Him  draw 
him.  Unless  some  power  above  man  made  the  difference 
between  the  believer  and  unbeliever,  it  would  never  vitally 
appear.  But  if  God  makes  it,  He  does  it  of  purpose,  and  that 
purpose  must  be  eternal.  Hence,  no  intelligent  mind  which 
admits  original  sin,  denies  election.  The  two  doctrines  stand 
or  fall  together. 

3.  A  number  of  passages  of  Scripture  assert  God's  election 
of   individuals,   in   language  too  clear  to  be 

From    Scripture     evaded:  Matt,  xxiv:  24;  Jno.  xv  :  16;  Acts 

testimonies.  ...         r>-i-.  •••  ^ '   •>        .  ' 

xui :  48;  Rom.  vni ;  29,  30;  ix  :  11,  16,  22, 
24 ;  xi :  5,7;  Eph.  i  :  4,  1 1  ;  Phil,  iv  :  3  ;  2  Tim.  i :  9 ;  2  Tim. 
ii :  19.  The  most  of  these  you  will  find  commented  on  in  your 
text  books,  in  such  a  manner  as  effectually  to  clear  them  of  the 
evasions  of  adversaries.  4th.  The  saints  have  their  names 
"written  in  the  book  of  life,"  or  in  "the  Lamb's  book,"  or  "in 
Heaven."  See  Phil,  iv  :  3  ;  Heb.  xii :  23  ;  Rev.  xiii :  8.  The 
book  of  life  mentioned  in  Scripture  is  of  three  kinds :  1st,  of 
natural  life.  Exodus  xxxii :  32  ;  when  Moses,  interceding  for 
Israel  prays  God,  that  he  may  be  removed  from  this  life,  rather 
than  see  the  destruction  of  his  brethren  :  2d,  of  federal,  visible, 
church  life  :  as  in  Ezek.  xiii  :  9 ;  lying  prophets  "  shall  not  be 
written  in  the  writing  of  the  house  of  Israel"  :  3d,  of  eternal 
life,  as  in  the  places  first  cited.  This  is  the  catalogue  of  the 
elect. 

This  class  of  passages  is  peculiarly  convincing  :  and  especi- 
Predestination  more  ^Hy  against  that  phase  of  error,  which  makes 
than  selection  of  a  char-  God's  election  nothing   else  than  a  determi- 
acter  to  be  favored.  nation  that  whosoever  believes  and  repents 

shall  be  saved,  or  in  other  words,  a  selection  of  a  certain  quality 
or  trait,  as  the  one  which  procures  for  its  possessors  the  favour 
of  God.  This  feeble  notion  may  be  farther  refuted  by  remark- 
ing that  all  the  language  employed  about  predestination  is 
personal,  and  the  pronouns  and  other  adjuncts  indicate  persons 
and  not  classes.  It  is  "  whom  (masculine)  He  foreknew,  them 
He  also  did  predestinate."  It  is  "As  many  as  were  ordained  to 
eternal  life,  believed,"  (masc.)  Acts  xiii :  48.  The  verb  Tzrioopc^M 
means  a  definite  decision.  See  e.  g..  Acts  xxii:  31,  or  xx:  42. 
Christ  tells  His  disciples  that  their  names  are  written  in  heaven  ; 
not  merely  the  general  conditions  of  their  salvation.  Luke  x  : 
20;  In  Phil,  iv  :  3,  Clement  and  his  comrades'  names  are  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  life.  The  condition  is  one ;  but  in  the  book 
are  multitudes  of  names  written.  Again  :  a  mere  determination 
to  bestow  favour  on  the  possessors  of  certain  qualities,  would  be 
15* 


226  SVLL.\BUS    AND    NOTES 

inert    and    passive    as   to    the    propagation   of  those    quahties ; 

whereas  God's  election  propagates  the  ver}'  quahties.     See  Rom. 

ix:   II,   i8,  22,   23;  Eph.  i :  4,  5  ;  2   Thess.  ii :   13.     "  He  hath 

chosen  us  to  salvation  through,  &c."     And  once  more  :  were 

this  determination  to  bestow  favonr  on  faith  and  penitence  the 

whole  of  election,  no  one  would  ever  possess  those  qualities ; 

for,  as  we  have  seen,  all  men's  hearts  are  fully  set  in  them  to  do 

evil,  and  would  certainly  continue   impenitent  did  not  God,  out 

of  His  gracious  purpose,  efficaciously  persuade  some  to  come  to 

Him.     These  qualities  which  are  thus  supposed  to  be  elected, 

are  themselves  the  consequences  of  election. 

5.  A  most  convincing  proof,  of  a  very  practical  nature,  may 

be  derived  from  the  observed  course  of  God's 
Predestination  proved  •  j  t-i     ,  •  j  j    , 

by  Providence.  providence.       i  hat     providence    determines 

sovereignly  the  metes  and  bounds  of  each 
man's  outward  privileges,  of  his  life  and  opportunities.  It 
determines  whether  he  shall  be  born  and  live  in  a  Pagan,  or  a 
Christian  country,  how  long  he  shall  enjoy  means  of  grace,  and 
of  what  efficacy,  and  when  and  where  he  shall  die.  Now  in  deci- 
ding these  things  sovereignly,  the  salvation  or  loss  of  the  man's 
soul  is  practically  decided,  for  without  time,  means,  and  oppor- 
tunity, he  will  not  be  saved,  This  is  peculiarly  strong  as  to  two 
classes.  Pagans  and  infants.  Arminians  admit  a  sovereign  elec- 
tion of  nations  in  the  aggregate  to  religious  privileges,  or  rejec- 
tion therefrom.  But  it  is  indisputable  that  in  fixing  their  outward 
condition,  the  religious  fate  is  virtually  fixed  forever.  What 
chance  has  that  man  practically,  for  reaching  Heaven,  whom 
God  caused  to  be  born,  to  live,  to  die,  in  Tahiti  in  the  sixteenth 
century  ?  Did  not  the  casting  of  his  lot  there  virtually  fix  his 
lot  for  eternity?  In  short,  the  sovereign  election  of  aggregate 
nations  to  privileges  necessarily  implies,  with  such  a  mind  as 
God's,  the  intelligent  and  intentional  decision  of  the  fate  of 
individuals,  practically  fixed  thereby.  Is  not  God's  mind  infi- 
nite ?  Are  not  His  perceptions  perfect  ?  Does  He,  like  a  feeble 
mortal,  "  shoot  at  the  covey,  without  perceiving  the  individual 
birds  ?"  As  to  infants,  Arminians  believe  that  all  such,  which 
die  in  infancy,  are  redeemed.  When,  therefore,  God's  provi- 
dence determines  that  a  given  human  being  shall  die  an  infant. 
He  infallibly  determines  its  redemption,  and  in  this  case,  at  least, 
the  decision  cannot  have  been  by  foresight  of  faith,  repentance, 
or  good  works ;  because  the  little  soul  has  none,  until  after  its 
redemption.  This  point  is  especially  conclusive  against  the 
Arminians  because  they  are  so  positive  that  all  who  die  in  infancy 
are  saved. 

The  declarations  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  Rom.  ix  and  xi  are 

so  decisive  in  our  favour,  that  they  must  needs 
conJiderTd.  °^  ^°™"  ''^   ^nd  the  debate,  with  all  who  revere  the  Divine 

authority,  but   for  an    evasion.     The  escape 
usually  sought  by  Arminians  (as  by  Watson,  Inst.)  is :  That  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  22/ 

Apostle  in  these  places,  teaches,  not  a  personal  election  to  salva- 
tion, but  a  national  or  aggregate  election  to  privileges.  My  first 
and  main  objection  to  this  is,  that  it  is  utterly  irreconcilable 
with  the  scope  of  St.  Paul  in  the  passage.  What  is  that  scope? 
Obviously  to  defend  his  great  proposition  of  "Justification  by 
free  grace  through  faith,"  common  to  Jew  and  Gentile,  from  a 
cavil  which,  from  pharisaic  view,  was  unanswerable,  viz  :  "That 
if  Paul's  doctrine  were  true,  then  the  covenant  of  election  with 
Abraham  was  falsified."  How  does  the  Apostle  answer  ?  Obvi- 
ously (and  irresistibly)  that  this  covenant  was  never  meant  to 
embrace  all  his  lineage  as  an  aggregate,  Rom.  ix  :  6.  "  Not  as 
though  the  word  (covenant)  of  God  had  taken  none  effect." 
"  For  they  are  not  all  Israel,  which  are  of  Israel,"  &c.  This 
decisive  fact  he  then  proves,  by  reminding  the  Jews  that,  at  the 
very  first  descent,  one  of  Abraham's  sons  was  excluded,  and  the 
other  chosen  ;  and  at  the  next  descent,  where  not  only  the 
father,  but  the  mother  was  the  same,  and  the  children  were  even 
twins  of  one  birth,  (to  make  the  most  absolute  possible  identity 
of  lineage)  one  was  again  sovereignly  excluded.  So,  all  down 
the  line,  some  Hebrews  of  regular  lineage  were  excluded,  and 
some  chosen.  Thus,  the  Apostle's  scope  requires  the  disinte- 
grating of  the  supposed  aggregates  ;  the  very  line  of  his  argu- 
ment compels  us  to  deal  with  individuals,  instead  of  masses. 
But  according  to  Watson,  the  Apostle,  in  speaking  of  the  rejec- 
tion of  Esau,  and  the  selection  of  Jacob,  and  of  the  remaining 
selections  of  Rom.  ix  and  xi,  only  employs  the  names  of  the 
two  Patriarchs,  to  impersonate  the  two  nations  of  Israel  and 
Edom.  He  quotes  in  confirmation,  Mai.  i  :  2;  3  ;  Gen.  xxv  : 
23.  But  as  Calvin  well  remarks,  the  primogeniture  typified  the 
blessing  of  true  redemption  ;  so  that  Jacob's  election  to  the 
former  represented  that  to  the  latter.  Let  the  personal  histories 
of  the  two  men  decide  this.  Did  not  the  mean,  supplanting 
Jacob  become  the  humble,  penitent  saint;  while  the  generous, 
dashing  Esau  degenerated  into  the  reckless,  Pagan,  Nomad 
chief?  The  selection  of  the  two  posterities,  the  one  for  Church 
privileges,  and  the  other  for  Pagan  defection,  was  the  conse- 
quence of  the  personal  election  and  rejection  of  the  two  pro- 
genitors. The  Arminian  gloss  violates  every  law  of  Hebrew 
'thought  and  religious  usage.  According  to  these,  the  posterity 
follow  the  staUts  of  their  progenitor.  According  to  the  Armini- 
ans,  the  progenitors  would  follow  the  status  of  their  posterity. 
Farther,  the  whole  discussion  of  these  chapters  is  personal,  it  is 
individuals  with  whom  God  deals  here.  The  election  cannot  be 
of  masses  to  privilege,  because  the  elect  are  explicitly  excepted 
out  of  the  masses  to  which  they  belonged  ecclesiastically.  See 
ch.  ix :  vs.  6,  7,  15,  23,  24;  ch.  xi ;  vs.  2,  4,  5,  7.  "The  elec- 
tion hath  obtained  it  and  the  rest  were  blinded."  The  discus- 
sion ranges,  also,  over  others  than  Hebrews  and  Edomites,  to 
Pharaoh,    an    individual   unbeliever,    &c.      Last,    the    blessings 


228  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

given  in  this  election  are  personal.  See  Rom.  viii :  29  ;  Eph. 
i :  5  ;  2  Thess.  ii :   13. 

God's   decree    we  found    possessed    of  the   properties    of 
3.  Predestination  eter-   ^nity,    universality,   eternity,   efficiency    and 
nal,   efficacious,    un-   immutability,  sovereignty,   absoluteness   and 
changeable,  &c.  wisdom.     Inasmuch  as  predestination  is  but 

a  part,  to  our  apprehension,  of  this  decree,  it  partakes  of  all 
those  properties,  as  a  part  of  the  whole.  And  the  general 
evidence  would  be  the  same  presented  on  the  general  subject 
of  the  decree.  The  part  of  course  is  not  universal  as  was  the 
whole.  But  we  shall  find  just  what  the  general  argument  would 
have  led  us  to  expect:  that  the  decree  of  predestination  is: 

(a)  Eternal.  Eph.  1:4.  "  He  hath  chosen  us  in  Christ 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world. "  2  Thess.  ii  :  13.  "From 
the  beginning."  2  Tim.  1:9.  "  Before  the  world  began.  "  (See 
last  Lect.) 

(b)  Immutably  efficacious.  There  is  no  reason  why  this 
part  of  the  decree  should  not  be  as  much  so  as  all  the  rest :  for 
God's  foreknowledge  and  control  of  the  acts  of  all  His  creatures 
have  been  already  established.  He  has  no  more  difficulty  in 
securing  the  certain  occurrence  of  all  those  acts  of  volition, 
from  man  and  devils,  which  are  necessary  to  the  certain 
redemption  of  the  elect,  than  in  any  other  department  of  His 
almighty  providence.  Why  then,  should  this  part  of  the  decree 
be  exempted  from  those  emphatic  assertions  of  its  universal 
and  absolute  efficacy?  Numb.  xxiii:i9;  Ps.  xxxiii :  ii.  Is. 
xlvi:  10.  But  farther,  unless  God's  purpose  of  saving  each 
elect  sinner  were  immutable  and  efficacious,  Christ  would  have 
no  certain  warrant  that  He  would  ever  see  of  the  travail  of  His 
soul  at  all.  For  the  same  causes  that  seduce  one  might 
seduce  another.  Again  :  no  sinner  is  saved  without  special 
and  Almighty  grace ;  for  his  depravity  is  total,  and  his  heart 
wholly  averse  from  God ;  so  that  if  God  has  not  provided,  in 
His  eternal  plan,  resources  of  gracious  power,  adequate  to  sub- 
due unto  Himself,  and  to  sustain  in  grace,  every  sinner  He 
attempts  to  save,  I  see  no  probability  that  any  will  be  saved  at 
all.  For,  the  proneness  to  apostacy  is  such  in  all,  that  if  God 
did  not  take  efficacious  care  of  them,  the  best  would  backslide 
and  fail  of  Heaven.  The  efficacy  of  the  decree  of  election  is 
also  proved  by  the  fact,  that  God  has  pre-arranged  all  the 
means  for  its  effectuation.  See.  Rom.  viii :  29,  30.  And  in  fine^ 
a  multitude  of  Scripture  confirms  this  precious  truth :  Matt. 
xxiv:25;  John  x:  28-30;  xvii  :  6,  12;  Heb.  vi  :  17;  2d. 
Tim.  ii :  19. 

Objections  against  this  gracious  truth  are  almost  countless,. 

^, .     .  _  as  though    instead  of  beins^  one  of  the  most 

Objections  to  efficient  •  •       c-      ■    ^  •.  •  j 

predestination.  precious  m  Scripture,  it  were  oppressive  ana 

cruel.     It  is  said  that  the  infallibility  of  the 

elect,  and  their  security  in  Christ,  Matt,  xxiv :  24;   John  x  :  28, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  229 

only  guarantee  them  against  such  assaults  as  their  free  will  may 
refuse  to  assent  to ;  and  imply  nothing  as  to  the  purpose  of  God 
to  permit  or  prevent  the  object  of  His  favour  from  going 
astray  of  his  own  accord.  Not  to  tarry  on  more  minute 
answers,  the  simple  reply  to  this  is  :  that  then,  there  would  be 
no  guarantees  at  all ;  and  these  gracious  Scriptures  are  mere 
mockeries  of  our  hope ;  for  it  is  notorious  that  the  only  way 
the  spiritual  safety  of  a  believer  can  be  injured  is  by  the  assent 
of  his  own  free  will ;  because  it  is  only  then  that  there  is  res- 
ponsibility or  guilt. 

It    is    objected    that    this  election    cannot    be   immutably 
Objected  that   the    efificacious,    because  we    read    in    Scripture 
Saints  warned  against    of  saints  who   are   warned   against  forfeiting 
^^^^^^S-  it ;  of  others   who    felt  a  wholesome   fear  of 

doing  so ;  and  of  God's  threats  that  He  would  on  occasion  of 
certain  sins,blot  their  names  from  His  book  of  life,  &c.  Rom.  xiv: 
15;  I  Cor.  ix  :  27 ;  Ps.  Ixix  :  28  ;  Rev.  xxii :  19 ;  2  Pet.  i :  10. 
As  to  the  last  passage,  to  make  sure  (^sj^acau  ^ottlad-at,  our 
election,  is  most  manifestly  spoken  only  with  reference  to  the 
believer's  own  apprehension  of  ic,  and  comfort  from  it ;  not  as 
to  the  reality  of  God's  secret  purpose.  This  is  fully  borne  out 
by  the  means  indicated — diligence  in  holy  living.  Such  fruits 
being  the  consequence,  and  not  the  cause  of  God's  grace  to  us, 
it  would  simply  be  preposterous  to  propose  to  ensure  or 
strengthen  His  secret  purpose  of  grace,  by  their  productions. 
All  they  can  do  is  to  strengthen  our  own  apprehension  that 
•such  a  purpose  exists.  When  the  persecuted  Psalmi  t  prays, 
Ps.  Ixix :  28,  that  God  would  "  blot  his  enemies  out  of  the  book 
of  the  living,"  it  by  no  means  seems  clear  that  anything  more 
is  imprecated  than  their  removal  from  this  life.  But  grant  the 
other  meaning,  as  we  do,  in  Rev.  xxii:  19,  the  obvious  ex- 
planation is  that  God  speaks  of  them  according  to  their  seeming 
and  profession.  The  language  is  adapted  ad  himtinem.  It  is 
not  intended  to  decide  whether  God  has  a  secret  immutable 
purpose  of  love  or  not,  as  to  them,  whether  they  were  ever 
elected  and  effectually  called  indeed,  and  may  yet  be  lost ;  but 
it  only  states  the  practical  truth,  that  wickedness  would  forfeit 
that  position  in  God's  grace,  which  they  professed  to  have. 
Several  of  the  other  passages  are  in  part  explained  by  the  fact 
that  the  Christians  addressed  had  not  yet  attained  a  comforta- 
ble assurance  that  they  were  elected.  Hence  they  might  most 
consistently  feel  all  these  wholesome  fears,  lest  the  partial  and 
uncertain  hope  they  entertained  might  turn  out  spurious.  But 
the  most  general  and  thorough  answer  which  covers  all  these 
cases  is  this :  Granting  that  God  has  a  secret  purpose  infallibly 
to  save  a  given  soul,  that  purpose  embraces  means  as  fully  as 
ends  ;  and  those  means  are  such  as  suit  a  rational  free  agent,  in- 
cluding all  reasonable  appeals  to  hope  and  fear,  prospect  of 
danger,  and  such  like  reasonable  motives.     Now,  that  an   elect 


230  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

man  may  fall  totally,  is  naturally  possible,  considering  him  in  his 
own  powers ;  hence,  when  God  plies  this  soul  with  fears  of  fall- 
ing it  is  by  no  means  any  proof  that  God  intends  to  permit  him 
to  fall,  in  His  secret  purpose.  Those  fears  may  be  the  very 
means  designed  by  God  to  keep  him  from  it. 

God's  predestination  is  wise.     It   is  not  grounded   on  the 

^  ,     .  foreseen   excellence    of  the   elect,   but    it   is 

belecUon  not   a  ca-      11,1  j     1  ,  .1  ,- 

price.  doubtles  grounded  on  good  reasons,  worthy  of 

the  divine  wisdom.  See  Rom.  xi  :-end,  words 
spoken  by  Paul  with  especial  reference  to  this  part  of  the  decree. 
The  sovereignty  and  unconditional  nature  of  God's  predestina- 
tion will  be  postponed  till  we  come  to  discuss  the  Arminian 
view. 

There  is  undoubtedly  a  predestination  of  angels.  They 
are  a  part  of  God's  creation  and  government, 
destinated  ^  ^'^  ^'^^'  ^"^  if  what  we  have  asserted  of  the  universal- 
ity of  His  purpose  is  true,  it  must  fix  their 
destiny  and  foresee  all  their  acts,  just  as  men's.  His  sover- 
eignty, wisdom,  infinite  foreknowledge,  and  power  necessitate  the 
supposition.  The  Scriptures  confirm  it,  telling  us  of  elect 
angels,  i  Tim.  v:  21;  of  "holy  angels,"  Matt,  xxv  :  31,  e^ 
passim,  as  contrasted  with  wicked  angels  ;  that  "  God  spared 
not  the  angels  that  sinned,  but  cast  them  down  to  heh,  and 
delivered  them  into  chains  of  darkness,  to  be  reserved  unto 
judgment,"  2  Pet.  ii  :  4.  Of  the  "everlasting  fire  prepared 
for  the  devil  and  his  angels,  "  Matt,  xxv  :  41.  Of  the  "  angels 
which  kept  not  their  first  estate,  but  left  their  own  habitation, 
whom  God  hath  reserved  under  darkness,  in  everlasting  chains 
unto  the  judgment  of  the  great  day,"  Jude.  6  :  and  of  Michael  and 
his  angels,  and  the  Dragon  and  his  angels,"  Rev.  xii  :  7.  Collat- 
ing these  passages,.!  think  we  clearly  learn,  that  there  are  two 
kinds  of  spirits  of  that  order ;  holy  and  sinful  angels,  servants 
of  Christ  and  servants  of  Satan  ;  that  they  were  all  created  in  an 
estate  of  holiness  and  happiness,  and  abode  in  the  region  called 
Heaven  ;  (God's  holiness  and  goodness  are  sufficient  proof  that 
He  would  never  have  created  them  otherwise),  that  the  evil 
angels  voluntarily  forfeited  their  estate  by  sinning,  and  were  then 
excluded  forever  from  Heaven  and  holiness;  that  those  who 
maintained  their  estate  were  elected  thereto  by  God,  and  that 
their  estate  of  holiness  and  blessedness  is  now  forever  assured. 
Now  the  most  natural  inference  from  these  Bible  facts  is,  that  a 
covenant  of  works  was  the  dispensation  under  which  God's 
predestination  of  angels  was  effectuated.  The  fact  that  those 
who  sinned,  fell  thereby  into  a  state  of  irreparable  condemnation 
is  most  naturally  explained  by  such  a  covenant.  The  fact  that 
the  elect  angels  received  the  adoption  of  life  by  maintaining 
their  holiness  for  a  time,  seems  almost  to  necessitate  that 
supposition.  That  the  probation  under  that  covenant  was 
temporary,  is  implied  in  the  fact  that  some  are  already  separated,. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  23 1 

and  known  as  elect,  while  others  are  condemned.  The  former 
must  be  finally  justified  and  confirmed;  the  latter  finally 
reprobated. 

1st.  Now  it  is  manifest,  that  these  gracious  and  righteous 

dealings    of    God  with   His   angels   in   time, 

Predestination  of  an-    ^^^^  ^^^  foreordained  by  Him  from  eternity. 

gels  dirters  from  men  s.  ,-  ,,     tt  i  •     ■      i 

Those  who  fell,  He  must  have  permissively 

ordained  to  fall,  and  those  who  are  confirmed,  He  must  have 
selected  from  eternity  to  be  confirmed.  But  in  two  respects,- 
this  election  of  angels  differs  from  that  of  men.  God's  predes- 
tination apprehended  men,  as  all  lying  alike  in  a  mass  of  total 
depravity  and  condemnation,  and  the  difference  He  has  made 
was  in  pure  mercy,  unprompted  by  any  thing  of  good  foreseen 
in  the  saints.  But  God's  predestination  apprehended  angels  as 
standing  alike  in  innocency  at  first,  and  as  left  to  the  determi- 
nation of  a  will  which,  as  yet,  had  full  ability  to  keep  the  law 
perfectly.  In  the  election  of  men,  while  the  decree  is  uncon- 
ditional, its  effectuation  is  dependent  on  the  elect  man's 
believing  and  repenting.  So,  in  the  case  of  angels,  while  the 
decree  was  unconditional,  the  effectuation  of  it  seems  to  have 
been  conditioned  on  the  elect  angel's  keeping  the  law  perfectly 
for  a  given  time.  Now  here  is  the  difference  of  the  two  cases; 
in  the  elect  man  the  ability  of  will  to  perform  that  condition  of 
his  salvation  is  inwrought  in  him  by  God's  power,  executing 
His  efficacious  decree,  (see  last  Lect.)  by  His  sovereign  and 
almighty  regeneration  of  the  dead  soul.  In  the  case  of  the 
elect  angel,  the  condition  of  his  salvation  was  fulfilled  in  his 
own  natural  strength ;  and  was  ordained  by  God  no  otherwise 
than  by  His  permissive  decree.  So  also,  the  effectuating  of 
the  reprobation  of  the  non-elect  angels  was  dependent  on  their 
voluntary  disobedience,  and  this  too  was  only  determined  by 
God's  permissive  decree.  It  has  been  asked  if  all  the  angels 
were  alike  innocent  and  peccable,  with  full  ability  of  will  to 
keep  the  law  perfectly,  and  yet  with  freedom  of  will  to  sin  ; 
how  came  it  that  the  experiment  did  not  result  alike  for  all, 
that  all  did  not  fall  or  stand,  that  like  causes  did  not  produce 
like  effects  ?  Must  there  not  have  been  a  cause  for  the  differ- 
ent results?  And  must  not  this  cause  be  sought  outside  the 
angels'  wills,  in  God's  agency?  The  answer  may  be,  that  the 
outward  relations  of  no  two  beings  to  circumstances  and  beings 
other  than  themselves  can  ever  be  identical.  In  those  different 
circumstances,  were  presented  occasional  causes  for  volitions, 
sufficient  to  account  for  different  volitions  from  wills  that  were 
at  first  in  similar  moral  states.  And  it  was  by  His  providential 
ordering  of  those  outward  relations  and  circumstances,  that 
God  was  able  permissively  to  determine  the  results.  Yet  the 
acts  of  the  two  classes  of  angels,  good  and  bad,  were  wholly 
their  own. 

The  second  difference  between  their  election  and  man's, 


232  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

2^j  ,j0-  is  that  the  angels  were  not  chosen  in  a  medi- 

ator. They  needed  none,  because  they 
were  not  chosen  out  of  a  state  of  guilt,  and  had  not  arrayed 
God's  moral  attributes  against  them.  Some  have  supposed 
that  their  confirming  grace  was  and  is  mediated  to  them  by 
Jesus  Christ,  quoting  Col.  ii:  10;  i  Pet.  i:  12;  Heb.  i:  6;  Phil. 
2  :  10;    I  Pet.  iii:  22;  Eph.  i:  10;   Col.  i:  14,  15,  20. 

These  passages  doubtless  teach  that  the  Son  was,  in  the 
beginning,  the  immediate  agent  of  creation  for  these,  as  for  all 
other  beings ;  and  that  the  God-man  now  includes  angels  in 
His  mediatorial  kingdom,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  He 
includes  the  rest  of  the  universe,  besides  the  saints.  But  that 
He  is  not  a  mediator  for  angels  is  clear,  from  the  fact  that, 
while  He  is  never  called  such.  He  is  so  emphatically  called  "the 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,"  i  Tim.  ii :  5.  Second.  He 
has  assumed  no  community  of  nature  with  angels.  Last.  It 
is  expressly  denied  in  Heb.  ii :  16,  17.     (Greek.) 

5.  All  who  call  themselves  Calvinists  admit  that  God's 
decree  is,  in  His  mind,  a  cotemporaneous  unit.  Yet  the  attempt 
to  assign  an  order  to  its  relative  parts,  has  led  to  three  different 
schemes  of  predestination :  that  of  the  Supralapsarian,  of  the 
S7iblapsarian,  and  of  the  Hypothetic  Universalist. 

The  first  suppose   that   in  a   rational   mind,  that   which   is 

Q„...oio„.    •        u  ultimate  as  end,  is  first  in  design  ;   and  that, 

bupralapsaiian  scheme.    .        ,  r      1  •  1  •      1 

m  the  process  01  plannmg,  the  mmd  passes 

from  the  end  to  the  means,  traveling  as  it  were  backwards. 
Hence,  God  first  designed  His  own  glory  by  the  salvation  of  a 
definite  number  of  men  conceived  as  yet  only  as  in  posse,  and 
the  reprobation  of  another  definite  number;  that  then  He  pur- 
posed their  creation,  then  the  permission  of  their  fall,  and  then 
the  other  parts  of  the  plan  of  redemption  for  the  elect.  I  do 
not  mean  to  represent  that  they  impute  to  God  an  actual  suc- 
cession of  time  as  to  the  rise  of  the  parts  of  the  decree  in  His 
eternal  mind,  but  that  these  divines  represent  God  as  planning 
rnan's  creation  and  fall,  as  a  means  for  carrying  out  His  predes- 
tination, instead  of  planning  his  election  as  a  means  for  repair- 
ing his  fall. 

The   Sublapsarian   assigns   the  opposite  order;    that  God 

e  uj        •         ,  determined  to  create  man  in  His  own  imasfe, 

buMapsarian    scheme.    ^11.  1  .        r  1 

to  place  him  under  a   covenant   01   works, 

to  permit  his  fall,  and   with  reference  to  the  fallen  and  guilty 

state  thus  produced,  to  elect  in  sovereign  mercy  some  to  be 

saved,  passing  by  the  rest  in   righteous  judgment   upon  their 

sins,  and  that  He  further  decreed  to  send  Jesus  Christ  to  redeeni 

the  elect.     This  milder  scheme  the  Supralapsarians  assert  to  be 

attended  with  the  vice  of  the  Arminian,  in  making  the  decree 

conditionaj;    in   that    God's   decree    of    predestination  is  made 

dependent  on  man's  use  of  his  free  will  under  the  covenant  of 

Avorks.     They  also  assert  that  their  scheme  is  the  symmetrical 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  233 

one,  in  that  it  assigns  the  rational  order  which  exists  between 
ultimate  end  and  intermediate  means. 

In  my  opinion  this  is  a  question  which  never  ought  to  have 
been  raised.     Both  schemes  are  illogical  and 
erron  ous.  contradictory  to  the  true  state  of  facts.     But 

the  Sublapsarian  is  far  more  Scriptural  in  its  tendencies,  and  its 
general  spirit  far  more  honourable  to  God.  The  Supralap- 
sarian,  under  a  pretense  of  greater  symmetry,  is  in  reality  the 
more  illogical  of  the  two,  and  misrepresents  the  divine  charac- 
ter and  the  facts  of  Scripture  in  a  repulsive  manner.  The  view 
from  which  it  starts,  that  the  ultimate  end  must  be  first  in 
design,  and  then  the  intermediate  means,  is  of  force  only  with 
reference  to  a  finite  mind.  God's  decree  has  no  succession; 
and  to  Him  no  successive  order  of  parts  ;  because  it  is  a  cotem- 
poraneous  unit,  comprehended  altogether,  by  one  infinite  intu- 
ition. In  this  thing,  the  statements  of  both  parties  are  untrue 
to  God's  thought.  The  true  statement  of  the  matter  is,  that  in 
this  co-etaneous,  unit  plan,  one  part  of  the  plan  is  devised  by 
God  with  reference  to  a  state  of  facts  which  He  intended  to 
result  from  another  part  of  the  plan ;  but  all  parts  equally  pres- 
ent, and  all  equally  primary  to  His  mind.  As  to  the  decree  to 
create  man,  to  permit  his  fall,  to  elect  some  to  life ;  neither  part 
preceded  any  other  part  with  God.  But  His  purpose  to  elect 
had  reference  to  a  state  of  facts  which  was  to  result  from  His 
purpose  to  create,  and  permit  the  fall.  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  the  Sublapsarian  scheme  makes  the  decree  conditional. 
True,  one  result  decreed  is  dependent  on  another  result  decreed; 
but  this  is  totally  another  thing.  No  scheme  can  avoid  this, 
not  even  the  Supralapsarian,  unless  it  does  away  with  all  agency 
except  God's,  and  makes  Him  the  direct  author  of  sin. 

Objections  to  t  h  e    But    we    object    mor&    particularly    to    the 
Supralapsarian.  Supralapsarian  scheme. 

(a)  That  it  is  erroneous  in  representing  God  as  having 
before  His  mind,  as  the  objects  of  predestination,  men  conceived 
in  posse  only ;  and  in  making  creation  a  means  of  their  salva- 
tion or  damnation.  Whereas,  an  object  must  be  conceived  as 
•existing,  in  order  to  have  its  destiny  given  to  it.  And  creation 
can  with  no  propriety  be  called  a  means  for  effectuating  a 
decree  of  predestination  as  to  creatures.  It  is  rather  a  pre- 
requisite of  such  decree. 

(b.)  It  contradicts  Scripture,  which  teaches  us  that  God 
chose  His  elect  "out  of  the  world,"  Jno.  xv  :  19,  and  out  of 
the  "same  lump  "  with  the  vessels  of  dishonour,  Rom.  ix  :  21. 
They  were  then  regarded  as  being,  along  with  the  non-elect,  in 
the  common  state  of  sin  and  misery. 

(c.)  Our  election  is  in  Christ  our  Redeemer,  Eph.  i  :  4 ; 
iii  :  II,  which  clearly  shows  that  we  are  conceived  as  being 
fallen,  and  in  need  of  a  Redeemer,  in  this  act.  And,  moreover, 
our  election  is  an  election  to  the  exercise  of  saving  graces  to 


234  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

be  wrought  in  us  by  Christ,  i  Pet.  i  :  2;  2  Thess.  ii  :  13. 
(d.)  Election  is  declared  to  be  an  act  of  mercy :  Rom.  ix  : 
15,  16;  xi  :  5,  6,  and  preterition  is  an  act  of  justice,  Rom.  ix  : 
22.  Now  as  mercy  and  goodness  imply  an  apprehension  of 
guilt  and  misery  in  their  object,  so  justice  implies  ill-desert. 
This  shows  that  man  is  predestinated  as  fallen ;  and  is  not  per- 
mitted to  fall  because  predestinated.  I  will  conclude  this  part^ 
by  repeating  the  language  of  Turrettin,  Loc.  4,  Qu.  18,  §5. 

1.  "By  this  hypothesis,  the  first  act  of  God's  will  towards- 
some  of  His  creatures  is  conceived  to  be  an  act  of  hatred,  in 
so  far  as  He  willed  to  demonstrate  His  righteousness  in  their 
damnation,  and  indeed  before  they  were  considered  as  in  sin, 
and  consequently  before  they  were  deserving  of  hatred  ;  nay, 
while  they  were  conceived  as  still  innocent,  and  so  rather  the 
objects  of  love.  This  does  not  seem  compatible  with  God's 
ineffable  goodness. 

2.  "It  is  likewise  harsh  that,  according  to  this  scheme,  God 
is  supposed  to  have  imparted  to  them  far  the  greatest  effects  of 
love,  out  of  a  principle  of  hatred,  in  that  He  determines  to  cre- 
ate them  in  a  state  of  integrity  to  this  end,  that  He  may  illus- 
trate His  righteousness  in  their  damnation.  This  seems  to- 
express  Him  neither  as  supremely  good  nor  as  supremely  wise 
and  just. 

3.  "It  is  erroneously  supposed  that  God  exercised  an  act  of 
mercy  and  justice  towards  His  creatures  in  His  foreordination 
of  their  salvation  and  destruction,  in  that  they  are  conceived  as 
neither  wretched,  nor  even  existing  as  yet.  But  since  those 
virtues  (mercy  and  justice)  are  relative,  they  pre-suppose  their 
object,  do  not  make  it. 

4.  "It  is  also  asserted  without  warrant,  that  creation  and  the 
fall  are  means  of  election  and  reprobation,  since  they  a|ie  ante- 
cedent to  them  :  else  sin  would  be  on  account  of  damnation,, 
whereas  damnation  is  on  account  of  sin ;  and  God  would  be 
said  to  have  created  men  that  He  might  destroy  them." 


LECTURE  XXII. 

PREDESTINATION.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  State  the  doctrine  as  taught  by  the  Hypothetic  Universahsts,   Amyraut  and 
Camero. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  17  and  18,  ^  13-20.     Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  28,  | 
I,  2.     Richard  Baxter's  "  Universal  Redemption." 

2.  State  and  refute  the  Arminian  scheme  of  predestination. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  10,  11,  12  and  17.     Hill,  Div.,  bk.  iv,  ch.  7,  ^  2  and  3. 
Dick,  Lect.  35.     Watson's  t(bi  supra. 

3.  What  !s  Cod's  decree  of  pretention  as  to  those  finally  lost?     What  its  gi-ound  ? 
How  proved  ?     And  how  does  God  harden  such  ? 

Turrettm,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  14,   15.     Hill,  as  above.     Dick,   Lect.  36.     Wesley's 
Sermons. 

4.  Is  predestination  consistent  with  God's  justice?     With  His  holiness?     With 
His  benevolence  and  sincerity  in  the   offer  of  mercy  to  all  ? 

Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  23.     Hill,  as  above.     Dick,  Lect.  36.     Jno.  Howe. 
Letter  to  Ro.  Boyle.     Turrettin,  Pontes  Sol.,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  17. 

5.  What  should  be  the  mode  of  pi^eaching  and  practical  effect  of  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  on  the  Christian  life? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  6.     Dick,  Lect.  36.     Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  3. 

Come  French  Presbyterian   Divines   of  Saumur  about  1630- 

50,  devised  still  another   scheme  of  relations  between  the 

,    .      ,  parts  of  the  decree,  representing^  God  as  first 

I.  Hypothetic  scheme.    /•  j  ^    •       .■        \  •  . 

^^  (in  order,  not  in  time)  purposing  to  create 

man ;  second,  to  place  him  under  a  covenant  of  works,  and  to 
permit  his  fall ;  third,  to  send  Christ  to  provide  and  offer  satis- 
faction for  all,  out  of  His  general  compassion  for  all  the  fallen  ; 
but  fourth,  foreseeing  that  all  would  surely  reject  it  because  of 
their  total  depravity,  to  select  out  of  the  rebellious  mass,  some, 
in  His  sovereign  mercy,  to  whom  He  would  give  effectual  calling. 
They  supposed  that  this  theory  would  remove  the  difficulties 
concerning  the  extent  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  also  recon- 
cile the  passages  of  Scripture  which  declare  God's  universal 
compassion  for  sinners,  with  His  reprobation  of  the  non-elect. 
This  scheme  is  free  from  many  of  the  objections  which  lie 
against  the  Arminian  ;  it  holds  fast  to  the 
truth  of  original  sin,  and  it  kvoids  the  ab- 
surdity of  conditioning  God's  decree  of  election  on  a  foresight 
of  the  saints'  faith  and  repentance.  But  in  two  respects  it  is 
untenable.  If  the  idea  of  a  real  succeesion  in  time  between  the 
parts  of  the  divine  decree  be  relinquished,  as  it  must  be  ;  then 
this  scheme  is  perfectly  illusory,  in  representing  God  as  decree- 
ing to  send  Christ  to  provide  a  redemption  to  be  offered  to  all, 
on  condition  of  faith,  and  this  out  of  His  general  compassion. 
For  if  He  foresees  the  certain  rejection  of  all  at  the  time,  and 
at  the  same  time  purposes  sovereignly  to  withhold  the  grace 
which  would  work  faith   in  the  soul,  from  some,  this  scheme  of 

235 


236  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

election  really  makes  Christ  to  be  related,  in  God's  purpose,  to 
the  non-elect,  no  more  closely  nor  beneficially  than  the  stricter 
Calvinistic  scheme.  But  second  and  chiefly,  it  represents  Christ 
as  not  purchasing  for  His  people  the  grace  of  effectual  calling, 
by  which  they  are  persuaded  and  enabled  to  embrace  redemp- 
tion. But  God's  purpose  to  confer  this  is  represented  as  dis- 
connected with  Christ  and  His  purchase,  and  subsequent,  in 
order,  to  His  work,  and  the  foresight  of  its  rejection  by  sinners. 
Whereas  Scripture  represents  that  this  gift,  along  with  all  other 
graces  of  redemption,  is  given  us  in  Christ,  having  been  pur- 
chased for  His  people  by  Him.  Eph.  i :  3  ;  Phil,  i :  29 : 
Heb.  xii:  2. 

I  have  postponed  to  the  last,  the  fourth  scheme  for  arrang- 
ing the  order  of  the  parts  of  the  decree,  which 
2.  Arminian  scheme.    •    °i        *        •    •  tt        -ir        i.  u  /^    j  1 

IS  the  Armmian.    Unwilhng  to  rob  God  openly 

of  His  infinite  perfection,  as  is  done  by  the  Socinians,  they  admit 
that  He  has  some  means  of  foreseeing  the  contingent  acts  of 
free-agents,  although  He  neither  can  nor  does,  consistently  with 
their  free-agency,  exercise  any  direct  foreordination  over  those 
acts.  Such  contingent  acts,  they  say,  would  be  unknowable  to 
a  finite  mind ,  but  this  does  not  prove  that  God  may  not  have 
some  mode  of  certainly  foreknowing  them,  which  implies  no 
foreordination,  and  which  is  inscrutable  to  us.  This  foresight 
combines  with  His  eternal  purpose  in  the  following  order,  ist. 
God  decreed  to  create  man  holy  and  happy,  and  to  place  him 
under  a  covenant  of  works.  2nd.  God  foreseeing  man's  fall 
into  a  state  of  total  depravity  and  condemnation,  decreed  to 
send  Jesus  Christ  to  provide  redemption  for  all.  (This  redemp- 
tion included  the  purchase  of  common,  sufficient  grace  for  all 
sinners.)  And  God  also,  in  this  connection,  determined  the 
general  principle  that  faith  should  be  the  condition  of  an  actual 
interest  in  this  redemption.  3d.  Next  He  foresaw  that  some 
would  so  improve  their  common  grace  as  to  come  to  Christ,  turn 
from  sm  and  persevere  in  holiness  to  the  end  of  life.  These  He 
eternally  purposed  to  save.  Others,  He  foresaw,  would  neglect 
their  privileges,  so  as  to  reject,  or  after  embracing,  to  forsake 
Christ ;  and  these  He  eternally  purposed  to  leave  in  their  guilt 
and  ruin.  Thus  His  purpose  as  to  individuals,  while  eternal,  is 
conditioned  wholly  on  the  conduct  foreseen  in  them. 

This  plausible   scheme  seems   to    be,  at  the  first  glance, 
Objections,  ist.  That  attended  with  several  advantages  for  recon- 
the   decree    cannot  be  ciling  God's  goodness  and  sincerity  with  the 
conditional.  sinner's  damnation.     But  the  advantages  are 

only  seeming  For  i.  The  scheme  is  overthrown  by  all  the 
reasons  which  showed  generally  that  God's  decrees  cannot  be 
conditional;  (see  p.  218,  &c.)  and  especially  by  these,  (a.) 
That  every  one  of  the  creature  acts  is  also  foreordained,  on 
which  a  part  of  the  decree  is  supposed  to  be  conditioned,  (b.) 
That  all  the  future  events  into  which  these  contingent  acts  enter, 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  2^J 

directly  or  indirectly,  as  causes,  must  be  also  contingent ;  which 
would  cast  a  quality  of  uncertainty  and  possible  failure  over- 
God's  whole  plan  of  redemption  and  moral  government,  and 
much  of  His  other  providence,  (c.)  And  that  God  would  no 
longer  be  absolute  sovereign;  for,  instead  of  the  creatures 
depending  on  Him  alone,  He  would  depend  on  the  creature. 

One  can  scarcely   believe   that  Paul  would  have  answered 

,   ^,     „    ,  ,        the  objections    usually  raised    against  God's 
2nd.  That  Paul  does  •  „       j  t  t      j  •      ?.  •       i       i 

not  reply  thus  to  cavils,  sovereign  decree,  as  He  does  m  Rom.  ix,  had 
He  inculcated  this  Arminian  view  of  it.  In 
verses  14  and  19,  he  anticipates  those  objections  ;  ist  that  God 
would  be  unjust ;  2d  that  He  would  destroy  man's  free  agency, 
and  He  deigns  no  other  answer  than  to  reaffirm  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  God  in  the  matter,  and  to  repudiate  the  objec- 
tions as  sinful  cavils.  How  different  this  from  the  answer  of 
the  Arminian  to  these  cavils.  He  always  politely  evades  them 
by  saying  that  all  God's  dealings  with  men  are  suspended 
on  the  improvement  they  choose  to  make  of  His  common 
mercy  offered  to  them.  This  contrast  leads  us  to  believe  that 
St.  Paul  was  not  an  Arminian. 

The  believer's  faith,  penitence,  and  perseverance  in  holiness 
,  ^  . ,    „  could  never  be  so  foreseen  by  God,  as  to  be 

"^rd.  Faith,  &c.,  conse-     ,i  i-,-  •         tt-       ^        i    ^  •        . 

quences  of  electing  grace,  ^^e  condition  moving  Him  to  determine  to 
bestow  salvation  on  him,  because  no  child  of 
Adam  ever  has  any  true  faith,  &c.,  except  as  fruits  of  God's 
grace  bestowed  in  election.  This  is  evinced  in  manifold  ways 
throughout  Scripture,  (a.)  Man  is  too  depraved  ever  to  exer- 
cise these  graces,  except  as  moved  thereto  by  God,  Rom.  viii : 
7;  2  Cor.  iii :  5;  Rom.  vii :  18;  Gen.  vi :  5,  (b.)  The  elect 
are  declared  to  be  chosen  to  the  enjoyment  of  these  graces,  not 
on  account  of  the  exercise  of  them,  Rom.  viii  :  29  ;  2  Thess. 
ii :  13,  14;  Eph.  i:  4 ;  ii :  10.  (c.)  The  very  faith,  penitence 
and  perseverance  in  holiness  which  Arminians  represent  as  con- 
ditions-moving God  to  elect  man,  the  Scripture  represents  as 
gifts  of  God's  grace  inwrought  by  Him  in  the  elect,  as  conse- 
quences of  His  election,  Eph.  ii :  8  ;  Acts  v:  31;  2  Tim.  ii : 
25;  Phil,  i:  6;  2  Pet.  i:  3.  (d.)  All  the  elect  believe  on 
Christ,  Jno.  x:  16,  27  to  29;  vi :  37,  39;  xvii :  2,  9,  24,  and 
none  others  do,  Jno.  x  :  26  :  Acts  xiii  :  48  ;  ii :  47.  Couple 
these  two  facts  together,  and  they  furnish  a  strong  evidence 
that  faith  is  the  consequence  (therefore  not  the  cause)  of 
election. 

The  Scriptures  in  the  most  express  and  emphatic  terms 
declare  that  it  was  no  goodness  in  the  elect 
4th.  Express  texts.  ^^j^j^j^  C2.v.-,&di  God  to  choose  them  ;  that  His 
electing  love  found  them  lying  in  the  same  mass  of  corruption 
and  wrath  with  the  reprobate,  every  way  deserving  the  same 
fate,  and  chose  them  out  of  it  for  reasons  commending  them- 
selves to  His  own  good  pleasure,  and  in  sovereign  benevolence. 


238  SYLLABUS    AXD    NOTES 

This  was  seen  in  Jacob  and  Esau,  Rom.  ix  :  1 1-13,  as  to  Israel ; 
Ezek.  xvi :  3-6.  As  to  all  sinners,  Rom.  ix  :  15,  16,  18,  21  ; 
Rom.  xi :  4-7  ;  viii :  28.  (Here  the  Arminians  claim  that  God's 
foreknowledge  precedes  and  prompts  His  foreordination.  But 
we  have  shown  that  this  foreknowledge  implies  selection.)  2 
Tim.  i:  g;   Matt,  xi :  26  ;  Jno.  xv :  16-19. 

5th.  From  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  conditional  election, 
must  flow  this  distinction,  admitted  by  many  Wesleyans.  Those 
who  God  foresaw  would  believe  and  repent.  He  thereupon 
elected  to  adoption.  But  all  Arminians  believe  that  an  adopted 
believer  may  "  fall  from  grace."  Hence,  the  smaller  number, 
who  God  foresaw  would  persevere  in  gospel  grace,  unto  death. 
He  thereupon  elected  to  eternal  life.  And  the  persons  elected 
to  eternal  lite  on  foresight  of  their  perseverance,  are  not  identi- 
cal with  those  elected  to  adoption  on  foresight  of  their  faith. 
But  now,  if  the  former  are,  in  the  omniscience  of  God,  elected 
to  eternal  life  on  foresight  of  their  perseverance,  then  they  must 
be  certain  to  persevere.  We  have  here,  therefore,  the  doctrine 
of  the  perseverance  of  this  class  of  the  elect.  The  inference  is 
unavoidable.  On  this  result  we  remark  first:  It  is  generally 
conceded  by  both  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  that  the  doctrine 
of  perseverance  is  consistent  only  with  that  of  unconditional 
election,  and  refutes  the  opposite.  Second  :  In  every  instance 
of  the  perseverance  of  those  elected  unto  eternal  life  (on  certain 
foresight  of  their  perseverance)  we  have  a  case  of  volitions  free 
and  responsible,  and  yet  certainly  occurring.  But  this,  the 
Arminians  hold,  infringes  man's  freedom.  Third  :  No  effect  is 
without  a  cause.  Hence,  there  must  be  some  efficient  cause 
for  this  certain  perseverance.  Where  shall  it  be  sought  ?  In  a 
contingent  will  ?  or  in  efficacious  grace?  These  are  the  only 
known  sources.  It  cannot  be  found  in  a  contingent  source  ; 
for  this  is  a  contradiction.  It  must  then  be  sought  in  efficacious 
grace.  But  this,  if  dispensed  by  omniscience,  can  be  no  other 
than  a  proof  and  result  of  electing  grace. 

The  word  reprobate   (ar/rW//.f>c)   is   not,   so   far    as  I  know, 
applied   in  the  Scriptures  to  the  subject  of 
3.  Pretention.  predestination.       Its    etymology   and    usage 

would  suggest  the  meaning  of  something  rejected  upon  under- 
going a  test  or  trial,  and  hence,  something  condemned  or 
rejected.  Thus  Rom.  i  :  28,  ddnxctMu  vohv,  a  mind  given  over  to 
condemnation  and  desertion,  in  consequence  of  great  sin,  2  Tim. 
iii  :  8.  Sectaries,  ddoxcuoc  tzsju  rir^v  Tziaztv,  finally  condemned  and 
given  over  to  apostasy  concerning  the  Christian  system,  i  Cor. 
ix  :  27,  "  Lest  after  I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be 
ddoy.cu.o::,"  rejected  at  the  final  test,  i.  e..  Judgment  Day.  Hence 
the  more  general  sense  of  "worthless,"  Tit.  i  :  16;  Heb.  vi  :  8. 
The  application  of  this  word  to  the  negative  part  of  the 

^,  decree  of  predestination  has  doubtless  prej- 

1  he  word  ill-chosen.         j-        i  t^.  •  i       1    i.    j    i.       •„ 

udiced   our  cause.     It  is  calculated   to   mis- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  239 

represent  and  mislead,  because  it  suggests  too  much  the  idea 
■of  a  comparative  judicial  result.  For  then,  the  query  arises, 
if  the  non-elect  and  elect  have  been  tested  as  to  their  deserts, 
in  the  divine  mind,  how  comes  it  that  the  elect  are  acquitted 
-when  they  are  as  guilty,  and  the  non-elect  condemned  when 
they  are  no  worse  ?  Is  not  this  partiality  ?  But  the  fact  is, 
that  in  election,  God  acted  as  a  sovereign,  as  well  as  a  judge; 
and  that  the  elect  are  not  taken  because  they  are  less  guilty 
upon  trial,  but  because  God  had  other  secret,  though  sufficient 
reasons.  If  the  negative  part  of  the  decree  of  predestination 
then  must  be  spoken  of  as  a  decree  of  reprobation,  it  must  be 
understood  in  a  modified  sense. 

The  theologians,  while  admitting  the  strict  unity  of  God's 

Does  it  include  pre-  decree,  divide  reprobation  into  two  elements, 
terition  and  predam-  as  apprehended  by  us,  preterition  and  pre- 
'"^t^o"-  damnation.    These  Calvinists,  were  they  con- 

sistent, would  apply  a  similar  analysis  to  the  decree  of  election, 
and  divide  it  into  a  selection  and  a  prejustification.  Thus  we 
should  have  the  doctrine  of  an  eternal  justification,  which  they 
properly  reject  as  erroneous.  Hence,  the  distinction  should 
be  consistently  dropped  in  explaining  God's  negative  predesti- 
nation. 

I  would  rather  say,  that  it  consists  simply  of  a  sovereign, 
yet  righteous  purpose  to  leave  out  the  non-elect,  which  preter- 
ition was  foreseen  and  intended  to  result  in  their  final  righteous 
condemnation.  The  decree  of  reprobation  is  then,  in  its 
essence,  a  simple  preterition.  It  is  indeed  intelligent  and 
intentional  in  God.  He  leaves  them  out  of  His  efficacious 
plan  and  purpose  of  mercy,  not  out  of  a  general  inattention  or 
■overlooking  of  them,  but  knowingly  and  sovereignly.  Yet 
objectively  this  act  is  only  negative,  because  God  does  nothing 
to  those  thus  passed  by,  to  make  their  case  any  worse,  or  to 
give  any  additional  momentum  to  their  downward  course.  He 
leaves  them  as  they  are.  Yea,  incidentally.  He  does  them 
many  kindnesses,  extends  to  multitudes  of  them  the  calls  of 
His  word,  and  even  the  remonstrances  of  His  Spirit,  preventing 
them  from  becoming  as  wicked  as  they  would  otherwise  have 
been.  But  the  practical  or  efficacious  part  of  His  decree  is, 
simply  that  He  will  not  "  make  them  willing  in  the  day  of  His 
power." 

When  we  thus  explain  it,  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  a 
decree  of  preterition.     It  is  inevitably  implied 

Preterition  proved.        .^^   ^j^^    ^^^^^^    ^f  election,  COUpled    with    the 

fact  that  all  are  neither  elected  nor  saved.  If  salvation  is  of 
God ;  if  God  is  a  Being  of  infinite  intelligence,  and  if  He  has 
eternally  purposed  to  save  some;  then  He  has  ipso  facto 
equally  purposed  from  eternity  to  leave  the  others  in  their  ruin. 
And  to  this  agree  the  Scriptures,  Rom.  ix  :  13,  17,  18,  21  and  22; 
Matt,  xi  :  25  ;  Rom.  xi :  7;  2  Tim.  ii  :  20;  Jude.  4;    i  Pet.  ii  :  8. 


240  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

This  is  a  part  of  God's  word  which  has  ever  been  assailed! 

with  the  fiercest  cavils.     It  has  been  repre- 

Objections.  Answers.   ^^^^^^  ^^  picturing  a   God,   who   created   a 

number  of  unfortunate  immortals,  and  endued  them  with  capac- 
ities for  sinning  and  suffering,  only  in  order  that  He  might 
damn  them  forever ;  and  to  this  wretched  fate  they  are  inexor- 
ably shut  up,  by  the  iron  decree,  no  matter  what  penitent 
efforts  or  what  cries  for  mercy  and  escape  they  may  put  forth ; 
while  the  equally  or  more  guilty  objects  of  the  divine  caprice 
and  favouritism  are  admitted  to  a 'Heaven  which  they  cannot 
forfeit,  no  matter  how  vilely  they  behave.  There  is  no  wonder 
that  a  Wesley  should  denounce  the  doctrine  thus  misrepre- 
sented, as  worthy  only  of  Satan.  There  is,  indeed,  enough  in 
the  truth  of  this  subject,  to  fill  every  thoughtful  mind  with  solemn 
awe  and  holy  fear  of  that  God,  who  holds  the  issues  of  our 
redemption  in  His  sovereign  hand.  But  how  differently  does 
His  dealing  appear,  when  we  remember  that  He  created  all  His 
creatures  at  first  in  holiness  and  happiness ;  that  He  gave  them 
an  adequate  opportunity  to  stand ;  that  He  has  done  nothing 
to  make  the  case  of  the  non-elect  worse  than  their  own  choice 
makes  it,  but  on  the  contrary,  sincerely  and  mercifully  warns- 
them  by  conscience  and  His  word  against  that  wicked  choice ; 
that  it  is  all  a  monstrous  dream  to  fancy  one  of  these  non-elect 
seeking  Heaven  by  true  penitence,  and  excluded  by  the  inex- 
orable decree,  because  they  all  surely  yet  voluntarily  prefer 
their  impenitence,  so  that  God  is  but  leaving  them  to  their  pre- 
ferred ways ;  and  that  the  only  way  He  ensures  the  elect  from- 
the  destruction  due  their  sins,  is  by  ensuring  their  repentance, 
faith,  and  diligent  strivings  to  the  end  in  a  holy  life. 

Yet  it  must  be  confessed  that  some  of  the  odiousness  of 
Is  pretention  ground-  the  doctrine  is  in  part  due  to  the  unwise 
ed  on  the  sin  of  those  views  of  it  presented  by  the  Orthodox  some- 
passed  by.  times,  going  beyond  all  that  God's  majesty,, 
sovereignty  and  word  require,  out  of  a  love  of  hypothesis. 
Thus,  it  is  disputed  what  is  the  ground  of  this  righteous  preter- 
ition  of  the  non-elect.  The  honest  reader  of  his  Bible  would 
suppose  that  it  was,  of  course,  their  guilt  and  wickedness  fore- 
seen by  God,  and,  for  wise  reasons,  permissively  decreed  by 
Him.  This,  we  saw,  all  but  the  supralapsarian  admitted  in  sub- 
stance. God's  election  is  ever^^wherc  represented  in  Scripture, 
as  an  act  of  mercy,  and  His  pretention  as  an  act  of  righteous 
anger  against  sin.  The  elect  are  vessels  of  mercy,  the  non- 
elect  of  wrath.  (God  does  not  show  anger  at  anything  but  sin) 
as  in  Rom.  ix  :  22.  Everywhere  it  is  sin  which  excludes  from 
His  favour,  and  sin  alone. 

But  it  is  urged,  with  an  affected  over-refinement,  the  sin 
of  the  non-elect  cannot  be  the  ground  of  God's  preterition, 
because  all  Adam's  seed  being  viewed  as  equally  depraved,  had 
this  been  the  ground,  all  would  have  been  passed  by.     I  reply,. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  24 1 

yes  ;  if  this  had  been  the  only  consideration,  pro  or  con,  present 
in  God's  mind.  The  ill-desert  of  all  was  in  itself  a  sufficient 
ground  for  God  to  pass  by  all.  But  when  His  sovereign  wisdom 
suggested  some  reason,  unconnected  with  the  relative  desert  or 
ill-desert  of  sinners,  which  was  a  good  and  sufficient  ground  for 
God's  choosing  a  part;  this  only  left  the  same  original  ground, 
ill-desert,  operating  on  His  mind  as  to  the  remainder.  It  is 
perfectly  true  that  God's  sovereignty  concerns  itself  with  the 
preterition  as  well  as  the  election ;  for  the  separate  reason 
which  grounded  the  latter  is  sovereign.  But  with  what  pro- 
priety can  it  be  said  that  this  secret  sovereign  reason  is  the 
ground  of  his  preterition,  when  the  very  point  of  the  case  was 
that  it  was  a  reason  which  did  not  apply  to  the  non-elect,  but 
only  to  the  elect?  As  to  the  elect,  it  overruled  the  ground  for 
their  preterition,  which  would  otherwise  have  been  found,  in 
their  common  ill-desert.  As  to  the  non-elect,  it  did  not  apply, 
and  thus  left  the  original  ground,  their  ill-deserts,  in  full  force. 
If  all  sinning  men  had  been  subjects  of  a  decree  of  prete- 
rition, nobody  would  have  questioned,  but  that  God's  ground 
for  passing  them  by  was  simply  their  ill-desert.  Now,  then,  if 
a  secret,  sovereign  motive,  counterpoising  that  presented  by  the 
ill-desert,  led  to  the  election  of  some  ;  how  does  this  alter  the 
ground  for  God's  preterition  of  the  rest  ?  Three  traitors  are 
justly  condemned  to  death  for  capital  crimes  confessed.  The 
king  ascertains  that  two  of  them  are  sons  of  a  noble  citizen,  who 
had  died  for  the  commonwealth  ;  and  the  supreme  judge  is 
moved  by  this  consideration  to  spare  the  lives  of  these  men. 
For  what  is  the  third  criminal  hung  ?  No  one  has  any  doubt 
in  answering :  "  For  his  treason."  The  original  cause  of  death 
remains  in  operation  against  him,  because  no  contravening  fact 
existed  in  his  case. 

But  it  is  said  again  :  that  if  we  make  the  sin  of  the  non- 
elect  the  ground  of  their  rejection,  then  by  parity  of  reasoning, 
we  must  make  the  foreseen  piety  of  the  elect  the  ground  of 
their  election ;  and  thus  return  to  the  error  of  conditional 
decrees.  This  perversely  overlooks  the  fact,  that,  while  the 
elect  have  no  piety  of  their  own  originating  to  be  foreseen,  tlie 
others  have  an  impiety  of  their  own.  Reviewing  the  arguments 
against  conditional  election,  the  student  will  see  that  this  is  the 
key  to  all :  It  cannot  be,  because  no  men  will  have  any  piety  to 
foresee,  save  as  it  is  the  result  of  God's  grace  bestowed  from 
election.  But  is  it  so  with  men's  sin  ?  Just  the  opposite.  Sin  is 
the  very  condition  in  which  God  foresees  all  men  as  standing,  for 
all  except  supralapsarians  admit  that  God  in  predestination 
regards  man  as  fallen.  Man's  foreseen  sin  may  be  the  ground 
of  God's  preterition,  because  it  is  not  the  effect  of  that  prete- 
rition, but  of  another  part  of  His  eternal  purpose,  viz  :  that  to 
permit  the  fall.  And,  as  again  and  again  taught,  while  the  decree 
is  absolute,  the  results  decreed  are  conditioned  ;  and  we  cannot 
16* 


242  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

but  conceive  God  as  predicating  one  part  of  His  eternal  purpose 
on  a  state  of  facts  which  was  destined  to  proceed  out  of  another 
part  thereof. 

Again :  it  is  said,  Scriptures  teach,  that  the  sin  of  the  non- 
elect  was  not  the  ground  of  their  preterition.  "  In  John  x  : 
26,  continued  unbelief  is  the  consequence,  and  therefore  not 
the  ground  of  the  Pharisees'  preterition. "  Matt,  xi  :  25  ; 
Rom.  ix  :  11,  18.  "God's  will,"  they  say,  "and  not  the  non- 
elect's  sin,  is  the  ground  of  His  purpose  to  harden."  And 
"  Esau  was  rejected  as  much  without  regard  to  his  evil,  as  Jacob 
was  elected  without  regard  to  his  good  deeds."  To  the  first  of 
these  points  I  reply,  that  the  withholding  of  God's  grace  is  but 
the  negative  occasion  of  a  sinner's  unbelief,  just  as  the  absence 
of  the  physician  from  a  sick  man  is  the  occasion,  and  not  the 
cause,  of  His  death.  Men  say  that  "  he  died  because  he  failed 
to  receive  medical  help,"  when  speaking  popularly.  But, they 
know  that  the  disease,  and  not  the  physician,  killed  him.'  So, 
our  Saviour  teaches,  in  Jno.  x  :  26  ;  that  the  stubborn  unbe- 
lief of  the  Pharisees  was  occasioned  by  God's  refraining  from 
the  bestowal  of  renewing  grace.  But  He  does  not  deny  that 
that  this  unbelief  was  caused  by  their  own  depravity,  as  left 
uninfluenced  by  the  Spirit.  Turrettin  (Loc.  iv  :  Qu.  15,)  although 
inconsistently  asserting  on  this  point  the  supralapsarian  extreme, 
says,  (Sec.  3,)  that  we  must  distinguish  between  the  non-elect 
man's  original  unbelief,  and  his  acquired  :  and  that  it  is  the 
latter  only,  which  he  denies  to  be  a  ground  of  preterition, 
because  it  is  a  result  thereof  He  admits  that  the  original 
unbelief  may  be  a  ground  of  preterition.  This  virtually  con- 
cedes the  point.  To  the  second  argument,  we  reply,  that  God's 
decree  of  preterition  is,  like  all  others,  guided  by  His  e'joo/.ia. 
But  is  this  sovereign  good  pleasure  motiveless  ?  Is  it  irrational 
caprice  ?  Surely  not.  It  is  the  purpose  of  a  sovereign  ;  but  of 
one  who  is  as  rational,  just,  holy  and  good,  as  He  is  absolute. 
Such  a  being  would  not  pass  by,  in  righteous  displeasure,  His 
creature  in  whom  He  saw  no  desert  of  displeasure.  The  third 
point  is  made  from  the  oft-cited  case  of  the  twins,  Esau  and 
Jacob.  Let  the  supralapsarian  strain  the  passage  to  mean  that 
Esau's  preterition  was  no  more  grounded  in  his  ill-desert,  than 
Jacob's  election  in  his  merit,  because  "  the  children  had  not 
done  good  nor  evil ;"  and  he  will  only  reach  a  result  obnoxious 
to  his  own  view  as  to  mine.  He  will  make  the  Apostle  teach 
that  these  children  had  no  original  sin,  and  that  they  stood 
before  the  divine  prescience  in  that  impossible  state  of  moral 
neutrality,  of  which  Pelagians  prate.  We  are  shut  up  to  inter- 
pret the  passage,  just  as  Turrettin  does  elsewhere,  that  it  is  only 
a  relative  guilt  and  innocence  between  Esau  and  Jacob,  which 
the  Apostle  asserts.  In  fact,  both  "  were  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,  even  as  others." 

When  it  is  said  that  God  hardens  the  non-elect,  it  is  not, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  243 

,     ,     ,    .         and  cannot  be  intended,  that  He  exerts  posi- 
God   s   nardenma:,     .•        •    a  1.1  ^  1      ^1 

^l^at?  ^     tive  inrluence  upon  them  to  make  them  worse. 

The  proof  of  this  was  given  under  the  ques- 
tion, whether  God  can  be  the  author  of  sin.  See  especially 
Jas.  i  :  13.  God  is  only  the  negative  cause  of  hardening — the 
positive  depravation  comes  only  from  the  sinner's  own  voluntary 
feelings  and  acts.  And  the  mode  in  which  God  gives  place  to, 
or  permits  this  self-inflicted  work,  is  by  righteously  withholding 
His  restraining  word  and  Spirit ;  and  second,  by  surrounding 
the  sinner  (through  His  permissive  providence)  with  such  occa- 
sions and  opportunities  as  the  guilty  man's  perverse  heart  will 
voluntarily  abuse  to  increase  his  guilt  and  obduracy.  This 
dealing,  though  wrong  in  rnen,  is  righteous  in  God.  Even  when 
God's  decree  and  providence  concerning  sins  are  thus  explained, 
our  opponents  cavil  at  the  facts.  They  say  that  the  rule  of 
holiness  enjoined  on  us  is,  not  only  to  do  no  sin,  but  to  prevent 
all  the  sin  in  others  we  righteously  can.  They  say  that  the  same 
rule  obliges  God.  They  say  we  represent  Him  as  like  a  man 
who,  witnessing  the  perpetration  of  a  crime,  and  having  both 
the  right  and  power  to  prevent  it,  stands  idly  by :  and  they 
refer  us  to  such  Scriptures  as  Prov.  xxiv  :  ii,  12.  And  when 
we  remind  them,  that  God  permissively  ordains  those  sins,  not 
for  the  sake  of  their  evil,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  excellent  and 
holy  ends  He  will  bring  out,  they  retort,  that  we  represent  Him 
as  "  doing  evil  that  good  may  come."  These  objections  derive 
all  their  plausibility  from  forgetting  that  we  are  creatures  and 
bondsmen  of  God,  while  He  is  supreme  judge.  The  judicial 
retribution  of  sin  is  not  our  function  :  He  claims  it  as  His 
own.  Rom.  xii :  19.  It  is  a  recognized  principle  of  His  rule, 
to  make  permitted  sins  the  punishment  of  sins.  Hence,  we 
deny  that  it  follows,  the  same  rules  oblige  Him,  which  bind  us. 
It  does  not  follow,  that  the  sovereign  proprietor  can  righteously 
deal  towards  His  possessions,  only  in  the  modes  in  which  fellow 
servants  can  properly  treat  each  other.  Hence  such  dealing, 
making  guilty  souls  the  executors,  in  part,  of  their  own  right- 
eous punishment,  as  would  be  an  intrusion  for  us,  is  righteous 
and  holy  for  Him. 

To  notice  briefly  the  standing  objections  :  The  doctrine  of 

.     .       predestination  as   we  have  defined  it,  is  not 
4.  Is   predestination     •  •  i.      x.       'i-t    ^i        '      ^-  j  •  •  i.-    i-i- 

unTustly  partial  ?  mconsistent  With  the  justice  and  impartiality 

of  God.  His  agency  in  the  fall  of  angels  and 
men  was  only  permissive — the  act  and  choice  were  theirs. 
They  having  broken  God's  laws  and  depraved  themselves,  it 
would  have  been  just  in  God  to  leave  them  all  under  condem- 
nation. How  then  can  it  be  more  than  just  when  He  punishes 
only  a  part  ?  The  charge  of  partiality  has  been  absurdly 
brought  here,  as  though  there  could  be  partiality  where  there 
are  no  rights  at  all,  in  any  creature,  on  the  mercy  of  God  ;  and 
Acts  X  :  34 ;  Levit.  xix  :  1 5  ;  Deut.  i :  17;  2  Sam.xiv  :   14;  Rom. 


244  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ii :  II,  have  been  quoted  against  us.  As  Calvin  very  acutely 
remarks  on  the  first  of  these,  one's  persona,  7:()bao)-m^  in  the 
sense  of  these  passages,  means,  not  the  moral  character,  as 
judicially  well  or  ill-deserving,  but  his  accidental  position  in 
society,  as  Jew  or  Gentile,  rich  or  poor,  plebeian  or  nobleman. 
And  in  this  sense  it  is  literally  true  of  election,  that  in  it  God 
respects  no  man's  pcrsoiia,  but  takes  him  irrespective  of  all 
these  factitious  advantages  and  disadvantages.  To  this  foolish 
charge.  Matt,  xx:  15,  is  a  sufficient  answer.  God's  sovereignty 
ought  undoubtedly  to  come  in  as  a  reply.  Within  the  bounds 
of  His  other  perfections  of  righteousness,  truth  and  benevo- 
lence, God  is  entitled  to  make  what  disposal  of  His  own  He  is 
pleased,  and  men  are  His  property — Rom.  ix  :  20,  21.  Paul  does 
not  imply  here  that  God  is  capable  of  doing  injustice  to  an 
innocent  creature,  in  order  to  illustrate  His  sovereignty ;  but 
that  in  such  a  case  as  this  of  predestination,  where  the  condem- 
nation of  all  would  have  been  no  more  than  they  deserved,  He 
can  exercise  His  sovereignty,  in  sparing  and  punishing  just  such 
as  He  pleases,  without  a  particle  of  injustice. 

2.  It  is   objected,  that   God's  holiness  would  forbid  such  a 
predestination.      How,   it   is   said,  can   it  be 
o  y .  compatible    with    the    fact    that    God    hates 

sin,  for  Him  to  construct  an  arrangement,  He  having  full  power 
to  effectuate  a  different  one,  by  which  He  voluntarily  and 
intentionally  leaves  multitudes  of  His  creatures  in  increasing 
and  everlasting  wickedness?  And  the  same  objection  is  raised 
against  it  from  His  benevolence.  The  answer  is,  that  this  is 
but  the  same  difficulty  presented  by  the  origin  of  evil ;  and  it 
presses  on  the  Calvinist  with  no  more  force  than  on  the  Armin- 
ian,  or  even  on  the  Socinian.  Allow  to  God  a  universal,  per- 
fect foreknowledge,  as  the  Arminian  does,  and  the  very  same 
difficulty  is  presented,  how  an  almighty  God  should  have 
knowingly  adopted  a  system  for  the  universe,  which  would 
embody  such  results.  For  even  if  the  grossest  Pelagian  view 
be  adopted,  that  God  is  literally  unable  certainly  to  prevent  the 
wicked  acts  of  man's  free  will,  and  yet  leave  him  a  free  agent, 
it  would  doubtless  have  been  in  His  power  to  let  alone  creating 
those  who.  He  foresaw,  would  make  a  miserable  immortality 
for  themselves,  in  spite  of  His  grace.  The  Arminian  is  obliged 
to  say :  "  There  are  doubtless  inscrutable  reasons,  unknown  to 
us,  but  seen  by  God  to  be  sufficient,  why  He  should  permit  it?" 
The  same  appeal  to  our  ignorance  is  just  as  available  for  the 
Calvinist.  And  if  the  lowest  Socinian  ground  is  taken,  which 
denies  to  God  a  universal  foreknowledge  of  the  volitions  of 
free  agents,  still  we  must  suppose  one  of  two  things.  He 
must  either  have  less  wisdom  than  many  of  His  creatures,  or 
else.  He  made  these  men  and  angels,  knowing  in  the  general, 
that  large  immortal  misery  would  result.  So  that  there  is  no 
evasion  of  this  difficulty,  except  by  so   robbing   God   of   His 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  245 

perfections  as  practically  to  dethrone  Him.  It  is  not  Calvinism 
which  creates  it ;  but  the  simple  existence  of  sin  and  misery, 
destined  never  to  be  wholly  extinguished,  in  the  government 
of  an  almighty  and  omniscient  God.  He  who  thinks  he  can 
master  it  by  his  theory,  only  displays  his  folly. 

3.  It  is  objected  that  God's  goodness  and  sincerity  in  the 
offer  of  the  Gospel  to  all  is  inconsistent  with 
How  reconciled  with    predestination.     It  is   urged:    God  savs  He 
Gospel  otters  to  all .'         f,  ,       ,  ,  .        ,     °  ,        ,        r  1  •  '       1 

hath  no  pleasure  m  the  death  01  hun  that 

dieth  ;"    that   He  would  have  all  men  to  be  saved  ;  and  that 
Christ  declared  His  wish  to  save  reprobate  Jerusalem.      Now, 
how  can   these   things,  and    His   universal   offer:    "Whosoever 
will,  let  him  come,"  consist  with  the  fixed  determination   that 
the  non-elect  shall  never  be  saved  ?    I  reply,  that  this  difficulty 
(which  cannot  be  wholly  solved)  is  not  generated  by  predesti- 
nation, but  lies  equally  against  any  other  theory  which  leaves 
God   His   divine   attributes.      Let   one   take   this   set   of  facts. 
Here  is  a  company  of  sinners ;   God  could  convert  all  by  the 
same  powers  by  which  He  converts  one.     He  offers  His  salva- 
tion to  all,  and  assures  them  of  His  general  benevolence.     He 
knows  perfectly  that  some  will  neglect  the  offer ;    and  yet,  so 
knowing,  He  intentionally  refrains  from  exerting  those  powers, 
to  overrule  their  reluctance,  which   He   is  able  to  exert  if  He 
chose.     This  is  but  a  statement  of  stubborn  facts  ;  it  cannot  be 
evaded  without  impugning  the  omniscience,  or  omnipotence  of 
God,  or  both.     Yet,  see  if  the  whole  difficulty  is  not  involved 
in  it.     Every  evangelical  Christian,  therefore,  is  just  as  much 
interested  in  seeking  the  solution  of  this  difficulty  as  the  Cal- 
vinist.     And  it  is  to  be  sought   in   the   following   brief  sugges- 
tions.    God's  concern  in  the  transgression  and  impenitence  of 
those  whom  He  suffers  to  neglect  His  warnings  and  invitations, 
is  only  permissive.     He  merely  leaves  men  to  their  own  sinful 
choice.      His  invitations  are  always  impliedly,  or  explicitly  con- 
ditional ;  suspended  on  the  sinner's  turning.     He  has  never  said 
that  He  desires  the  salvation   of   a   sinner  as   impenitent;   He 
only  says,  if  the  sinner  will  turn,   he  is  welcome  to  salvation. 
And  this  is  always  literally  true ;  were  it  in  the   line  of   possi- 
iDilities  that  one  non-elect  should  turn,   he  would  find  it  true  in 
his   case.     All,  therefore,  that  we   have   to   reconcile   is   these 
three  facts ;  that  God  should  see  a  reason  why  it  is  not  proper, 
in  certain  cases,  to  put  forth  His  almighty  grace  to  overcome  a 
.sinner's  reluctance  ;  and  yet  that  He  should  be  able  to  do  it  if 
He  chose ;  and  yet  should  be  benevolent   and   pitiful  towards 
all  His  creatures.     Now  God  says  in  His  Word  that  He  does 
compassionate  lost  sinners.     He  says  that  He  could  save  if  He 
pleased.     His  word  and  providence  both  show  us  that  some  are 
permitted  to  be  lost.     In  a  wise  and  good  man,  we  can  easily 
understand  how  a  power  to  pardon,  a  sincere  compassion  for 
3.  guilty  criminal,  and  yet  a  fixed  purpose  to  punish,  could  co- 


246  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

exist;  the  power  and  compassion  being  overruled  by  His  wis- 
dom. Why  may  not  something  analogous  take  place  in  God, 
according  to  His  immutable  nature?  Is  it  said:  such  an 
explanation  implies  a  struggle  in  the  breast  between  competing 
considerations,  inconsistent  with  God's  calm  blessedness?  I 
reply,  God's  revelations  of  His  wrath,  love,  pity,  repentance, 
&c.,  are  all  anthropopathic,  and  the  difficulty  is  no  greater 
here,  than  in  all  these  cases.  Or  is  it  said,  that  there  can  be 
nothing  except  a  lack  of  will,  or  a  lack  of  power  to  make  the 
sinner  both  holy  and  happy?  I  answer:  it  is  exceeding  pre- 
sumption to  suppose  that,  because  we  do  not  see  such  a  cause, 
none  can  be  known  to  God  ! 

"  The  doctrine  of  this  high  mystery  of  predestination  is  to 
be  handled  with  special  prudence  and  care." 
and  itVSt.^' '''""''''  In  preaching  it,  that  proportion  should  be 
observed,  which  obtains  in  the  Bible  ;  and  no 
polemical  zeal  against  the  impugners  of  the  doctrine  ought  to 
tempt  the  minister  to  obtrude  it  more  often.  To  press  it  prom- 
inently on  anxious  inquirers,  or  on  those  already  confused  by 
cavils  of  heretics  or  Satanic  suggestions,  or  to  urge  it  upon 
one  inclined  to  skepticism,  or  one  devoid  of  sufficient  Christian 
knowledge,  experience  and  humility,  is  unsuitable  and  impru- 
dent. And  when  taught,  it  should  be  in  the  mode  which 
usually  prevails  in  Scripture,  viz :  a  posteriori,  as  inferred  from 
its  result,  effectual  calling. 

But  when  thus  taught,  the  doctrine  of  predestination  is  full 
of  edification.  It  gives  ground  for  humility,  because  it  leaves 
man  no  ground  for  claiming  any  of  the  credit  of  either  origin- 
ating or  carrying  on  his  salvation.  It  lays  a  foundation  for 
confident  hope ;  because  it  shows  that  "  the  gifts  and  calling  of 
God  are  without  repentance."  It  should  open  the  fountains  of 
love  and  gratitude,  because  it  shows  the  undeserved  and 
eternal  love  of  God  for  the  undeserving.  See  here  an  eloquent 
passage  in  Witsius,  b.  3,  chap.  4,  §  30.  We  should  learn  to 
teach  and  to  view  the  doctrine,  not  from  an  exclusive,  but  from 
an  inclusive  point  of  view.  It  is  sin  which  shuts  out  from 
the  favour  of  God,  and  which  ruins.  It  is  God's  decree  which 
calls  back,  and  repairs  and  saves  all  who  are  saved.  Wliatever 
of  sin,  of  guilt,  of  misery,  of  despair  the  universe  exhibits, 
arises  wholly  out  of  man's  and  Satan's  transgression.  What- 
ever of  redemption,  of  hope,  of  comfort,  of  holiness  and  of 
bliss  alleviates  this  sad  panorama,  all  this  proceeds  from  the 
decree  of  God.  The  decree  is  the  fountain  of  universal  benev- 
olence ;  voluntary  sin  is  the  fountain  of  woe.  Shall  the  fountain 
of  mercy  be  maligned  because,  although  it  emits  all  the  happi- 
ness in  the  universe,  it  has  a  limit  to  its  streams? 


LECTURE  XXIII. 

CREATION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  the  usage  and  meaning  of  the  word  create  in  Scripture  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  i.     Lexicons.     Dick,  Lect.  37. 

2.  How  else  have  philosophers  accounted  for  the  existence  of  the  universe,  ex- 
cept by  a  creation  out  of  nothing  ? 

Turrettin,  ubi  supra.  Dick,  as  above.  Brucher's  Hist,  of  Phil.  British 
Encyclopiedia,  articles  "Atomic  Philosophy,"  and  "  Platonism." 

3.  Prove  that  God  created  the  world  out  of  nothing;  first  from  Scripture,  and 
second,  from  Reason  and  the  objections  to  the  eternity  of  the  Universe  and  matter. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  3.  Dr.  S.  Clarke,  Discourses  of  Being,  &c.,  of  God. 
Dick,  as  above.  Hodge,  Theology,  Vol.  i,  pp.  558,  &c.  Thornwell,  Lect.  9, 
pp.  206-7.     Christlieb,  Mod.  Doubt  and  Chr.  Behef,  Lect.  3. 

4.  Can  a  creature  receive  the  power  of  creating,  by  delegation  from  God  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  2. 

5.  What  was  each  day's  work  of  creation,  in  the  Mosaic  week  ? 

Genesis,  ch.  i.  Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  5,  6.  On  this  and  the  previous  ques- 
tions, see  Knapp's  Chr.  Theol.,  Art.  v,  |  45  to  50. 

6.  What  are  the  theories  of  modern  Geologists  concerning  the  age  of  the  earth  ? 
Their  grounds,  and  the  several  modes  proposed  for  reconciling  them  with  the  Mosaic 
history  ? 

Hitchcock's  Rehg.  and  Geology.  Univ.  Lectures,  Dr.  Lewis  Green.  Hugh 
Miller,  Tesdmony  of  the  Rocks.  Tayler  Lewis'  Symbol  Days.  David  N. 
Lord  on  Geol.  Sir  Charles  Lyell's  System  of  Geol.  Dt.  Gerald  Molloy. 
Wiseman's  Lects.,  &c. 

HE   words  rendered   to   create,    cannot   be   considered,   in 

their  etymology  and  usage,  very  distinctive  of  the  nature 

of    the    act.       The    authorities    make    ^5*]2 
I.  Terms  defined.  T  7 

mean  "  to  cut  or  carve,"  primarily,  (from  the 
idea  of  splitting  off  parts,  or  separation)  hence  "  to  fashion," 
then  to  "  create ;"  and  thence  the  more  derivative  sense  of  pro- 
ducing or  generating,  regenerating  the  heart,  &c.  The  verb 
7\\D'^  carries,  according  to  the  authorities,  more  of  the  sense 


T 


of  the  Greek  verb  rtocico — "to  do  or  to  make  ,"  and  is  used  for 
fashioning,  manufacturing,  doing  (as  a  function  or  business), 
acquiring  property,  &c.     The  verb  "^y  seems  to  me  to  carry 

more  distinctively  the  idea  of  fashioning  out  of  pre-existent 
materials,  as  a  potter  ("l!^!'')  out  of  clay,  &c.     And  it  will  be 

observed  that  wherever  it  is  applied  to  making  man  or  animals 
in  Gen.,  the  material  out  of  which,  is  mentioned  or  implied,  as 
ii  :  7.     God    fashioned    man   ("lU"'^!)   out   of   the   dust   of   the 

earth.  The  word  usually  employed  from  Greek  in  Septuagint 
and  New  Testament  to  express  the  idea  of  creating,  as  distin- 
guished from  begetting  or  generating  is  xzi^co.  This,  author- 
ities say,  means  primarily  to  "found,"  or  "build,"  and  hence, 
"to  make,"  "create." 

It  will  be  clearly  seen  hence,  that  the  nature  of  the  creative 

247 


248  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

act  is  but  faintly  defined  by  the  mere  force 
<,f';o?hTifg"  ""  °"'    °^  the  words.     Yet  Scripture  does  not  lack 

passages,  which  explicitly  teach,  that  God 
produced  the  whole  Universe  out  of  nothing  by  His  almighty 
power ;  i.  e.,  that  His  first  work  of  creation  did  not  consist 
merely  of  fashioning  materials  already  existent,  but  of  bring- 
ing all  substance,  except  His  own,  out  of  non-existence  into 
existence.  How  impossible  this  seemed  to  the  ancient  mind 
appears  from  this  fact,  that  the  opposite  was  regarded  as  an 
axiom  {e.r  iiihilo  nihil  fit)  and  lay  as  such  at  the  basis  of  every 
system  of  human  device.  So  that  it  was  from  an  accurate 
knowledge,  that  the  author  of  Hebrews  says  (xi  :  3,)  that  the 
true  doctrine  of  creation  was  purely  one  of  faith.  And  this  is 
our  most  emphatic  proof  text.  We  may  add  to  it  Rom.  iv  : 
17;  perhaps  i  Cor.  i  :  28  ;  2  Cor.  iv  :  6;  Acts  xvii  :  28 ;  Col.  i : 
17.  The  same  meaning  may  be  fairly  argued  for  the  word 
^^12,  Gen.  i  :  I,  from  the  fact  that  its  sense  there  is  absolutely 

T  T  ■' 

unqualified  or  limited  by  any  previous  proposition,  or  reference 
to  any  material,  and  also  from  the  second  verse.  The  work  of 
the    first   verse    expressed    by    ^")2.  left    the    earth    a    chaos. 

Therefore  it  cannot  contain  the  idea  of  fashioning,  so  that  if 
you  refuse  to  it  the  sense  of  an  absolute  production  out  of 
nothing,  you  seem  to  leave  it  no  meaning  whatever.  This 
truth  also  appears  very  strongly,  from  the  contrast  which  is  so 
often  run  by  Scripture  between  God's  eternity  and  the  tempo- 
ral nature  of  the  creation.  See  Ps.  xc  :  2 ;  Matt,  xxv  :  34 ;  2 
Tim.  i  :  9;  Rev.  i  :  11  ;  and  especially  Prov.  viii  :  23-26,  "nor 
the  highest  part  of  the  dust  of  the  world."  It  is  hard  to  see 
how  it  could  be  more  strongly  asserted,  that  not  only  was  the 
organization,  but  the  very  material  of  the  world  as  yet  all 
non-existent.  • 

How  almighty  power  brings  substance  into  existence  from 

^, .  .  , ,    ,        absolute  non-entity,   our  minds  may  not  be 

1  his  inscrutable,  but       ui        ^  •  t  m  1 

not  impossible.  'a^v>\Q    to    conceive.        i^ike    so    many    other 

questions  of  ontology,  it  is  too  impalpable  for 

the  grasp  of  our  understandings.     As  we  have  seen,  the   mind 

neither  sees  nor  conceives  substance,   not  even  material ;  but 

only  its  attributes  ;  only,  it  is  intuitively  impelled  to  refer  those 

attributes  (of  which  alone  it  has  perception,  to  some  substratum 

as  the  substance  in  which  they  inhere.     The  entity  itself  being 

mysterious,  it  need   not  surprise  us  to  find  that  its   rise  out  of 

non-entity  is  so.     It  is  objected  that  a  creation  out  of  nothing  is 

a  contradiction,  because  it  makes  nothing  a  material  to  act  on, 

and  thus,  an  existence.     We  reply  that  this  is  a  mere  play  upon 

the  meaning  of  a  preposition  ;    We  do  not  mean  that  "  nothing  " 

is  a  material  out  of  which  existences  are  fashioned ;  but  the 

term  from  which  an  existence  absolutely  begins.      God  created 

a  world  where  nothing  was  before.       Is  it  objected   that,   in  all 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  249 

our  experiental  knowledge  of  causation,  the  object  to  receive, 
is  as  necessary  as  the  agent  to  emit,  power?  True;  but  our 
knowledge  of  power  is  not  an  experimental  idea,  but  an  intuitive, 
rational  notion ;  and  in  the  most  ordinary  effect  which  we 
witness,  is  as  really  inscrutable  to  our  perception  and  imagina- 
tion, as  the  causation  of  a  totally  new  existence.  The  latter 
is  beyond  our  finite  powers ;  we  are  certainly  incompetent  to 
say  that  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  infinite  power.  So,  all  the 
transcendental  difficulties  which  Pantheists  make  against  a 
creation  ex  nihilo,  have  this  common  vice  :  They  are  attempts 
to  bring  down  to  our  conceptual  forms  of  thought  the  relations 
of  the  infinite,  which  inevitably  transcend  them. 

3.  There  are  three  other  schemes  which  offer  us  an  alternative 
to  this  of  an  absolute  creation ;  that  of  the  atomic  philosophers, 
that  of  the  Platonists,  and  that  of  the  Pantheists. 

The  Atomic  theory  of  the  Universe,  advanced   by  Demo- 
.  critus  and  Leucippus,  adopted  by  Epicurus, 

utation!^'^  *^°'^'  ^"^ '  ^^^  greatly  opposed  by  Socrates  and  the 
Platonists,  might  be  so  stated,  if  freed  from 
the  mechanical  technicalities  of  the  Greeks,  as  to  embrace  as 
few  absurdities  as  perhaps  any  possible  anti-Christian  system. 
That  is,  it  has  the  merit  of  atheism,  of  making  two  or  three 
gigantic  falsehoods,  assumed  at  the  outset,  supersede  a  whole 
train  of  minor  absurdities.  Grant,  say  the  atomists,  the  eternal 
existence  of  matter,  in  the  state  of  ultimate  atoms,  endued  by 
the  necessity  of  nature,  with  these  three  eternal  attributes, 
motion,  a  perpetual  appetency  to  aggregation,  and  diversity  of 
ultimate  form,  and  you  have  all  that  is  necessary,  to  account 
for  universal  organization.  Now,  without  dwelling  on  the 
metaphysical  objection  (whose  soundness  is  questionable)  that 
necessary  existence  is  inconsistent  with  diversity  of  form,  these 
obvious  reasons  show  that  the  postulates  are  not  only  unproved 
(proof  I  have  never  seen  attempted)  but  impossible.  First : 
motion  is  not  a  necessary  attribute  of  matter:  but  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  indifferent  to  a  state  of  rest  or  motion,  requiring 
power  to  cause  it  to  pass  out  of  either  state  into  the  opposite. 
Second :  Intelligent  contrivance  could  never  be  generated  by 
mere  necessary,  mechanical  aggregations  of  material  atoms ; 
but  remains  still  an  effect  without  a  cause.  Third  :  the  mater- 
ialistic account  of  human  and  other  spirits,  which  this  theory 
gives,  is  impossible. 

The  Pantheistic  theory  has  been  already  refuted,  as  space 
would  allows,  in  Lect.  ii,  which  see.  The 
ReSkin.  ^''''^"'^  Platonic  is  certainly  attended  with  fewest 
absurdities,  and  best  satisfied  the  de- 
mands of  thinking  minds  not  possessed  of  Revelation. 
Starting  with  the  maxim  ex  niJiilo  nihil  fit,  it  supposes  two 
eternal  substances,  the  sources  of  all  that  exists  ;  the  spiritual 
God,  and    chaotic  matter ;  the  spirits   of  demi-gods,  and  men 


250  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

being    emanations   of  the   former,    and    the    material    universe 
having  been  fashioned  out  of  the  latter,  in  time,  through  the 
agency  of  the  Noo:;  or  JfjUtouyfo:;.     The  usual  arguments  against 
the  eterntiy  of  the  unorganized  matter  of  the   universe,  have 
been    weighed    in    the    Second    Lecture,    and    many    of  them 
found  wanting,  (which  see).     I  now  aim  only  to  add  to  what  is 
there  said,  such  considerations  as  human  reason  seems  able  to 
advance  solidly  against  this  doctrine.     You  will  remember  that 
I  there  argued,   ist:  From  the  testimony  of  the  human    race 
itself,  and  2d,  from  the  recency  of  population,  history,  traditions,, 
arts,    &c.,   on  the   earth,  against  the  eternity  of  its   organized 
state.     To    this  we  may  add :   3d.    If  matter  unorganized  was 
eternal,    it  must  have  been  self-existent,  and  hence,  whatever 
attributes    it    had    from    eternity    must    have    been    absolutely 
necessary.       Hence   there   was  a  necessary  limitation  on   the 
power    of   God,   in    working    with    such   a    material ;     and     it 
may  be  that  He  did  not  make  what  He  would  have  preferred  to 
make,  but  only  did  the  best  He  could  under  the  circumstances. 
(Indeed,  the  Platonist,  knowing  nothing  of  the  doctrine  of  a  fall 
in  Adam,  accounted  for  all  the  disorders  and  defects   in  the 
world,  by  the  refractory  nature  of  eternal  matter.     The  creator 
excuses  himself  as  a  smith  does,  who,  though  thorougly  skillful, 
produces  an   imperfect  edge-tool,  because  he  had  nothing  but 
bad  steel).     But,  if  this  is  so,  then  :  (a)      God  as  Creator  is  not 
infinite  ;  there  are  limitations  upon  His  powers,  as  necessary 
and  eternal  as  His  own  attributes.     And  these  limits  obstruct 
His  providential  action  as  they  did  His  creative.     Hence,   He 
is  no  longer  an  object  of  religious  trust,  and  perfect  confidence. 
He  is  only  an  able  artificer,     (b)  Then,  also,  God's  knowledge 
of  this  self-existent  matter,  external  to  Himself,  was  experimen- 
tally gained  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  His    omniscience  is   fatally 
vitiated.     4th.    The  elementary  properties  of  matter,  which  on 
this    theory,    must  have  been  eternal    and  necessary,   have  an 
adaptation  to  God's  purposes  in  creation,  that  displays  intelligent 
contrivance,  just  as  clearly  as  any  organized  thing  can.     But 
matter    is    unintelligent ;    this  design    must  have  had  a  cause. 
5th.  The  production  of  spiritual  substance  out  of  nothing  is,  we 
presume,  just   as  hard  to  account  for  as    material  substance. 
Hence,  if  an  instance   of  the  former  is  presented,  the  doctrine 
of  the  eternity  of  the  Universe  may  as  well  be   surrendered. 
But  our  souls  each  present  such  an  instance.       No  particle  of 
evidence   exists  from  consciousness   or  recollection,  that  they 
pre-existed,  and  everything  is  against  the  notion  that  they  are 
scintillations  of  God'  substance.     They  began  to  exist :  at  least 
man  has  no  knowledge  whatever  of  any  other  origin  :  and  by 
the   rule  :    De  ignotis  idem  quasi  de  7ton  existentibus,  any  other 
origin    is   out    of  the    debate.       They   were    produced    out    of 
nothing.     In  conclusion,  it  may  be  said  that,  if  the  idea  of  the 
production    of  something  out   of  nothing  is   found  to   be   not 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  25 1 

impossible,  as  we  think,  when  we  have  supposed  an  Almighty 
Creator,  we  have  cause  enough  to  account  for  everything,  and 
it  is  unnecessary  to  suppose  another. 

The  question  whether  a  creature  can  receive,  if  God  choose, 

delegated  power  to  create,  has  been  agitated 
he\n%dTcZtr    between    the    Orthodox   and    some    of  the 

Romanists,  (who  would  fain  introduce  a  plea 
for  the  making  of  a  Saviour  by  the  priest,  in  the  pretended 
miracle  of  the  mass)  and  the  old  Arians  and  Socinians,  who 
would  thus  evade  the  argument  for  Christ's  proper  divinity, 
irom  the  evident  ascription  to  Him  of  works  of  creation.  We 
believe  not  only  that  the  noblest  of  finite  creatures  is  incapable 
of  exercising  creative  power  proper,  of  his  own  motion ;  but  of 
receiving  it  by  delegation  from  God,  so  that  the  latter  is  one  of 
those  natural  impossibles  which  it  would  argue  imper- 
fection in  omnipotence  to  be  capable  of  doing. 

(a)  God,  in  a  multitude  of  places,  claims  creation  as  His 
characteristic  work,  by  which  His  Godhead  is  manifested,  and 
His  superiority  shown  to  all  false  gods  and  idols ;  Is.  xliv ;  7,  24  ; 
xl:  12,  13,  18,  28  ;  Job  ix:  8;  Jer.  x  :  11,  12  ;  Is.  xxxvii :  16; 
Ps.  xcvi :  5.     Thus  Creator  comes  to  be  one  of  God's  names. 

(b)  To  bring  anything,  however  small,  out  of  non-existence 
is  so  far  above  man's  capabilities,  that  he  cannot  even  conceive 
how  it  can  be  done.  In  order  that  a  work  may  be  conceivable 
or  feasible  for  uS,  it  must  have  subject  and  agent.  Man  has  no 
faculty  which  can  be  directed  upon  non-entity,  in  any  way,  to 
bring  anything  out  of  it.  Indeed,  however  small  the  thing  thus- 
produced  out  of  nothing,  there  is  an  exertion  of  infinite  power. 
The  distance  to  be  passed  over  between  the  two  is  a  fathomless 
gulf  to  every  finite  mind. 

(c.)  To  make  one  thing,  however  limited,  might  require  in- 
finite powers  of  understanding.     For  however  simple,  a  number 
of  the  laws   of  nature   would   be  involved  in  its  structure  ;  and 
the  successful  construction  would   demand  a  perfect  acquaint- 
ance with  those  laws,  at  least,  in  their  infinite  particularity,  and  in 
all  their  possible   combinations,  and  with  the  substance  as  well 
as   attributes.      Consider   any   of  the    constructions    of  man's 
shaping  and  joining  materials  God  has  given  him,  and  this  will 
be  found  true.     The  working  of  miracles  by  prophets,  apostles,, 
&c.,  offers  no  instance  to  the   contrary,  because  it  is  really  God 
who  works  the  miracle,  and  the  human  agent  only  announces, 
and  appeals  to  the  interposition  of  divine  power.     See  Acts  iii :  1 2. 
If  we  suppose   that  Gen.   i:   i,  describes   a   previous  pro- 
duction in  a  time  left  indefinite,  of  the  heavens 
5.  The  Creative  Week.  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^^^^  ^f  ^^^  ^^^.^1^^  ^^^^^  the  WOrk  of 

the  first  of  the  six  days  will  be  the  production  of  light.  It  may 
seem  unreasonable  at  the  first  glance,  that  light  should  be 
created,  and  should  make  three  days  before  the  sun,  its  great 
fountain    at  present,    was    formed.     But  all  the    researches   of 


252  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

modem  optics  go  more  and  more  to  overthrow  the  behef  that 
Hght  is  a  substantive  emanation  from  the  sun.  What  it  is,_ 
whether  a  substance,  or  an  affection  of  other  substance,  is  still 
unknown.  Hence  it  cannot  be  held  unreasonable,  that  it  should 
have  existed  before  the  sun  ;  nor  that  God  should  have  regulated 
it  in  alternations  of  day  and  night.  On  the  second  day  the  atmos- 
phere seems  to  have  been  created,  (the  expanse)  or  else  disen- 
gaged from  chaos,  and  assigned  its  place  around  the  surface  of 
the  earth.  This,  by  sustaining  the  clouds,  separated  the  waters 
from  the  waters.  The  work  of  the  third  day  was  to  separate 
the  terrestrial  waters  from  the  dry  ground,  to  assign  each  their 
bounds,  and  to  stock  the  vegetable  kingdom  with  its  genera  of 
trees  and  plants.  The  fourth  day  was  occupied  with  the  cre- 
ation, or  else  the  assignment  to  their  present  functions,  of  sun, 
moon  and  stars.  And  henceforth  these  became  the  chief 
depositories,  or  else  propagators,  of  natural  light.  The  fifth 
day  witnessed  the  creation  of  all  oviparous  animals,  including 
the  three  classes  of  fishes,  reptiles  and  birds.  The  sixth  day 
God  created  the  terrestrial  animals  of  the  higher  order,  now 
known  as  mammalia,  and  man.  His  crowning  work. 

In  our  age,  as  you  are  aware,  modern  geologists  teach,  with 
great  unanimity,  that  the  state  of  the  struc- 
ern%Jl'g;%lred:  ^ures  which  compose  the  earth's  crust  shows 
it  to  be  vastly  more  than  6,000  years  old.  To 
explain  this  supposed  evidence  to  you,  I  may  take  for  granted 
your  acquaintance  with  the  classes  into  which  they  distribute 
the  rocks  and  soils  that  form  the  earth,  so  far  as  man  has  pierced 
it.  Lowest  in  order,  and  earliest  in  age,  are  the  azoic  rocks, 
many  of  them  crystalline  in  texture,  and  all  devoid  of  fossils. 
Above  them  are  rocks,  by  the  older  geologists  termed  secondar}^ 
and  tertiary,  but  now  termed  palaeozoic,  incsozoic,  and  caijiozoic. 
Above  them  are  alluvia,  the  more  recent  of  which  contain 
remains  of  existing  genera.  Only  the  barest  outline  of  their 
classification  is  necessary'  for  our  purpose.  Now,  the  theory  of 
the  geologists  is,  that  the  materials  of  the  stratified  rocks  were 
derived,  by  disintegration,  from  masses  older  than  themselves  ; 
and  that  all  this  material  has  been  re-arranged  by  natural  pro- 
cesses of  deposition,  since  the  creation  of  our  globe.  And 
hence,  that  creation  must  have  been  thousands  of  ages  before 
Adam,  "(a.)  Because  the  cr\'stalline  rocks,  which  are  supposed 
to  have  furnished  the  material  for  all  the  later,  seemed  to  have 
resulted  from  a  gradual  cooling,  and  are  very  hard,  disinte- 
grating very  slowly,  (b.)  The  made-rocks  and  earths  are  very 
abundant,  giving  an  average  thickness  of  from  six  to  ten  miles. 
Hence  a  very  great  time  was  requisite  to  disintegrate  so  much 
hard  material,  (c.)  The  position  of  these  made  strata  or  layers, 
indicates  long  series  of  changes,  since  they  were  deposited,  as 
upheavals,   dislocations,  depressions,  subsequent  re-dissolvings. 

(d.)  They  contain  30,000  species  and  more,  of  fossil  remains 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  255 

of  animal  life,  besides  vegetable ;  of  which,  not  only  are  whole 
genera  now  extinct,  but  were  wholly  extinct  ages  before  another 
cluster  of  genera  were  first  created  ;  which  are  now  extinct  also. 
And  the  vast  quantities  of  these  fossils,  as  shells  in  some  lime- 
stone, remains  of  vegetation  in  vast  coal  beds,  &c.,  &c.,  point 
to  a  long  time,  for  their  gradual  accumulation. 

(f.)  There  are  no  human  fossils  found  with  these  remains  of 
earlier  life,  whence  they  were  pre-Adamite. 

Last.  Since  the  last  great  geologic  changes  in  the  strata 
of  the  made  rocks,  changes  have  been  produced  in  them  by 
natural  and  gradual  causes,  which  could  not  have  been  made  in 
6,000  years,  as  whole  deltas  of  alluvial  mud  deposited,  e.  g.. 
Louisiana,  deep  channels  dug  out  by  rivers,  as  Niagara  from 
Lake  Ontario  to  the  falls,  water  worn  caves  in  the  coast  lines, 
and  former  coast  lines  of  countries,  e.  g.,  Great  Britain,  which 
are  rock-bound. 

Modern  divines,  usually  yield  this  as  a  demonstration  :  and 
Attempts  to  recon-  offer  one  of  two  solutions  to  rescue  Moses 
cile  this  with  Moses,  from  the  appearance  of  mistake,  i.  Drs. 
1st.  Scheme.  p^g     Smith,    Chalmers,    Hitchcock,   Hodge, 

&c.,  suppose  Gen.  i:  i  and  2,  ist  clause,  to  describe  God's 
primeval,  creative  act ;  which  may  have  been  separated  by 
thousands  of  ages  from  Adam's  day  ;  and  in  that  vast  interval^ 
occurred  all  those  successive  changes,  which  geologists  describe 
as  pre-Adamite,  and  then  lived  and  died  all  those  extinct  genera 
of  animals  and  vegetables.  The  scene  had  been  closed,  per- 
haps ages  before,  by  changes  which  left  the  earth's  surface  void, 
for.-iless  and  dark.  But  all  this  Moses  passes  over  with  only 
one  word  ;  because  the  objects  of  a  religious  revelation  to  man 
were  not  concerned  with  it.  The  second  verse  only  describes 
how  God  took  the  earth  in  hand,  at  this  stage,  and  in  six  days 
gave  it  the  order,  the  genera  of  plants  and  animals,  and  last,  the 
human  race,  which  now  possesses  it. 

The  geological  objections  which  Hugh  Miller,  its  ablest 
Christian  assailant,  brings,  may  be  all  summed  up  in  this  :  That 
the  fossils  show  there  was  not  such  a  clean  cutting  off  of  all  the 
genera  of  plants  and  animals  at  the  close  of  the  pre-Adamite 
period,  and  re-stocking  of  the  earth  with  the  existing  genera  ; 
because  many  of  the  existing  co-exist  with  the  prevalent  pleio- 
cene  genera,  in  the  tertiary  rocks,  and  many  of  those  again, 
with  the  older  genera,  in  the  palaeozoic  rocks.  This  does  not 
seejn  at  all  conclusive,  because  it  may  have  suited  God,  at  the 
close  of  the  pre-Adamite  period,  to  suffer  the  extinction  of  all, 
and  then  to  create,  along  with  the  totally  different  new  genera, 
some  bearing  so  close  a  likeness  to  some  extinct  genera,  as  to 
be  indistinguishable  by  their  fossils.  ' 

The  exegetical  objections  are  chiefly  these,     i.  That  the 

sun,  moon   and  light  were   only  created  at 

Exegetical  difficulties,    ^^le   Adamic   period.     Without  these  there 


^54  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

could  have  been  neither  vegetable  nor  animal  life  before.  2. 
We  seem  to  learn  from  Gen.  i :  31;  iii:  17-19;  Rom.  v:  12; 
viii :  19-22,  that  all  animal  suffering  and  death  came  upon  our 
earth  as  a  punishment  for  man's  sin ;  which  our  conceptions  of 
the  justice  and  benevolence  of  God  seem  to  confirm.  To  the 
1st  the  common  answer  is,  that  the  chaotic  condition  into  which 
the  earth  had  fallen  just  before  the  Adamic  period,  had  prob- 
ably shut  out  all  influences  of  the  heavenly  bodies  ;  and  that 
the  making  of  sun,  moon,  &c.,  and  ordaining  them  for  lights, 
&c.,  probably  only  means  their  apparent  creation,  i.  e.,  their  re- 
introduction  to  the  earth.  To  the  2d  it  is  replied,  that  the 
proper  application  of  the  texts  attributing  all  terrestrial  dis- 
order and  suffering  to  man's  fall,  is  only  to  the  earth  as  cotem- 
porary  with  man  ;  and  that  we  are  too  ignorant  of  God's  plan, 
and  of  what  sin  of  rational  free  agents  may,  or  may  not  have 
occurred  on  the  pre-Adamite  earth,  to  dogmatize  about  it.  These 
replies  seem  plausible,  and  may  be  tenable.  This  mode  of 
reconciling  geology  to  Moses,  is  certainly  the  least  objection- 
able, and  most  respectable. 

The  second  mode  of  reconciliation,  now  made  most  fashion- 

^   .  able  by  H.    Miller,  Tayler  Lewis,   &c.,  sup- 

The  theory  of  six  sym-  '■ 

bolic  days.  poses  that  the  word  Qlf  day,  in  the  account 

of  creation,  does  not  mean  a  natural  day  of  24  hours,  but  is 
symbolical  of  a  vast  period  ;  during  which  God  was,  by  natural 
laws,  carrying  on  changes  in  the  earth's  surface  and  its  inhabi- 
tants. And  they  regard  the  passage  as  an  account  of  a  sort  of 
symbolic  vision,  in  which  God  gave  Moses  a  picture,  in  six 
tableaux,  of  these  six  vast  series  of  geologic  and  creative  changes  : 
so  that  the  language  is,  to  use  Dr.  Kurtz'  (of  Dorpat,)  fantastic 
idea,  a  sort  of  prophecy  of  the  past,  and  is  to  be  understood 
according  to  the  laws  of  prophetic  symbols.  This  they  confirm 
by  saying  that  Moses  makes  three  days  before  he  has  any  sun 
or  moon  to  make  them  :  that  in  Gen.  ii :  4,  the  word  is  used  for 
something  other  than  a  natural  day ;  and  that  it  is  often  used  in 
Hebrew  as  a  general  and  undefined  term  for  season  or  period. 
Miller  also  argues,  that  geology  reveals  the  same  succession  of 
fossils  which  Moses  describes ;  first  plants,  then  monstrous 
fishes  and  reptiles  and  birds,  (all  oviparous),  then  quadrupeds 
and  mammalia,  and  last,  man. 

The  following  objections  lie  against  this  scheme.     Geolo- 
Objections.  ^^^^^  ^''^  "°^  agreed  that  the  succession   of 

fossils  is  that  which  its  advocates  assert. 
Some  of  the  weightest  authorities  declare  that  plants  (assigned 
by  this  scheme  to  the  third  day,  and  to  the  earliest  production 
of  organic  things)  are  not  the  earliest  fossils.  Crustaceous, 
and  even  vertebrate  animals  precede  the  plants.  Second.  The 
narrative  seems  historical,  and  not  symbolical ;  and  hence  the 
strong  initial  presumption  is,  that  all  its  parts  are  to  be  taken  in 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  25$ 

their  obvious  sense.  The  advocates  of  the  symboHc  days  (as 
Dr.  G.  Molloy)  attach  much  importance  to  their  claim  that 
theirs  is  not  an  afterthought,  suggested  by  geologic  difficulties, 
but  that  the  exposition  was  advanced  by  many  of  the  '  Fathers  '. 
After  listening  to  their  citations,  we  are  constrained  to  reply 
that  the  vague  suggestions  of  the  different  Fathers  do  not  yield 
them  any  support,  because  they  do  not  adopt  their  theory  of 
explanation.  Third.  The  sacred  writer  seems  to  shut  us  up  to 
the  literal  interpretation,  by  describing  the  day  as  composed  of 
its  natural  parts,  "  morning  and  evening."  Is  the  attempt 
made  to  break  the  force  of  this,  by  reminding  us,  that  the 
"evening  and  the  morning"  do  not  make  up  the  whole  of  the 
civic. day  of  twenty-four  hours  ;  and  that  the  words  are  different 
from  those  just  before,  and  commonly  afterwards  employed  to 
denote  the  "  day  "  and  the  "  night,"  which  together  make  up  the 
natural  day?  We  reply:  it  is  true,  morning  and  evening  do  not 
literally  fill  the  twenty- four  hours.  But  these  epochs  mark  the 
beginnings  of  the  two  seasons,  day  and  night,  which  do  fill  the 
twenty-four  hours.  And  it  is  hard  to  see  what  a  writer  can 
mean,  by  naming  evening  and  morning  as  making  a  first,  or  a 
second  "day";  except  that  he  meant  us  to  understand  that 
time  which  includes  just  one  of  each  of  these  successive 
epochs :  —  one  beginning  of  night,  and  one  beginning  of  day. 
These  gentlemen  cannot  construe  the  expression  at  all. 
The  plain  reader  has  no  trouble  with  it.  When  we  have 
had  one  evening  and  one  morning,  we  know  we  have 
just  one  civic  day  ;  for  the  intervening  hours  have  made  just 
that  time.  Fourth.  In  Gen.  ii :  2,  3;  Exod.  xx:ii,  God's 
creating  the  world  and  its  creatures  in  six  days,  and  resting  the 
seventh,  is  given  as  the  ground  of  His  sanctifying  the  Sabbath 
day.  The  latter  is  the  natural  day  ;  why  not  the  former  ?  The 
evasions  from  this  seem  peculiarly  weak.  Fifth.  It  is  freely 
admitted  that  the  word  day  is  often  used  in  the  Greek  Scrip- 
tures as  well  as  the  Hebrew  (as  in  our  commmon  speech)  for  an 
epoch,  a  season,  a  time.  But  yet,  this  use  is  confessedly  deriva- 
tive. The  natural  day  is  its  literal  and  primary  meaning.  Now, 
it  is  apprehended  that  in  construing  any  document,  while  we  are 
ready  to  adopt,  at  the  demand  of  the  context,  the  derived  or 
tropical  meaning,  we  revert  to  the  primary  one,  when  no  such 
demand  exists  in  the  context.  Last.  The  attributing  of  the 
changes  ascribed  to  each  day  by  Moses,  to  the  slow  operation  of 
natural  causes,  as  Miller's  theory  does,  tramples  upon  the  proper 
scope  of  the  passage,  and  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  create  ;" 
which  teach  us  this  very  truth  especially ;  that  these  things 
were  not  brought  about  by  natural  law  at  all,  but  by  a  super- 
natural divine  exertion,  directly  opposed  thereto  See  Gen.  ii : 
5.  If  Moses  does  not  here  mean  to  teach  us  that  in  the  time 
named  by  the  six  "  days "  (whatever  it  may  be),  God  was 
employed  in  miraculously  creating  and  not  naturally  "growing  " 


256  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

a  world,  I  see  not  how  language  can  be  construed.  This 
decisive  difficulty  is  wholly  separate  from  the  questions  about 
the  much  debated  word,  "  day,"  in  this  passage. 


APPENDIX. 


Without  presuming  to  teach  technical  geology  (for  which 
I  profess  no  qualification  ;  and  which  lies,  as  I  conceive,  wholly 
outside  the  functions  of  the  Church  teacher),  I  wish,  in  dismiss- 
ing this  subject,  to  give  you  some  cautions  and  instructions 
touching  its  relations  with  our  revealed  science. 

There  must  always  be  a  legitimate  reason  for  Church 
teachers   adverting  to  this   subject  ;  because 

1.  This  subject  must  1  r.  i.    j    ■        •   i.       11  i-i 

concern  Theologians,  geology,  as  often  asserted,  IS  virtually  a  theory 
of  cosmogony,  and  cosmogony  is  but  the  doc- 
trine of  creation,  which  is  one  of  the  modes  by  which  God 
reveals  Himself  to  man,  and  one  of  the  prime  articles  of  every 
revealed  theology.  Were  not  all  the  ancient  cosmogonies  but 
natural  theologies  ?  Not  a  few  modern  geologists  resent  the 
animadversix)ns  of  theologians,  as  of  an  incompetent  class,, 
impertinent  and  ignorant.  Now  I  very  freely  grant  that  it  is  a 
very  naughty  thing  for  a  parson,  or  a  geologist,  to  profess  to- 
know  what  he  does  not  know.  But  all  logic  is  but  logic  ;  and 
after  the  experts  in  a  special  science  have  explained  their  prem- 
ises in  their  chosen  way,  it  is  simply  absurd  to  forbid  any  other 
class  of  educated  men  to  understand  and  judge  their  deductions. 
What  else  was  the  object  of  their  publications?  Or,  do  they 
intend  to  practice  that  simple  dogmatism,  which  in  us  religious 
teachers,  they  would  so  spurn  ?  Surely  when  geologists  cur- 
rently teach  their  systems  to  boys  in  colleges,  it  is  too  late  for 
them  to  refuse  the  inspection  of  an  educated  class  of  men ! 
When  Mr.  Hugh  Miller  undertook,  by  one  night's  lecture,  to 
convince  a  crowd  of  London  mechanics  of  his  pet  theory  of 
the  seven  geologic  ages,  it  is  too  late  to  refuse  the  criticism  of 
theologians  trained  in  philosophy  ? 

I  would  beg  you  to  notice  how  distinctly  either  of  the  cur- 

2.  Westminster  rent  theories  contradicts  the  standards  of  our 
Confession  incoasistent  Churcli.  See  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  iv,  §1. 
^'^^^"  Larger  Cat.,  que.  15,  120.  Our  Confession  is 
not  inspired  ;  and  if  untrue,  it  should  be  refuted.  But  if  your 
minds  are  made  up  to  adopt  either  of  these  theories,  then  it 
seems  to  me  that  common  honesty  requires  of  you  two  things  ; 
to  advertise  your  Presbyteries,  when  you  apply  for  license  and 
ordination,  of  your  disbelief  of  these  articles ;  that  they  may 
judge  whether  they  are  essential  to  our  system  of  doctrine  ;  and 
second ;  to  use  your  legitimate  influences  as  soon  as  you 
become  church  rulers,  to  have  these  articles  expunged  from  our 
standards  as  false. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  25/ 

Let  me  urge  upon  you  a  wiser  attitude  and  temper  towards 

the    new    science,    than    many    have   shown, 
^.    Deliberation   en-       .„  .1  •    •   ,  o  ■,  , 

JQJngj)  among  the    mmistry.     bome  have  shown  a 

jealousy  and  uneasiness,  unworthy  of  the 
stable  dignity  of  the  cause  of  inspiration.  These  apparent  diffi- 
culties of  geology  are  just  such  as  science  has  often  paraded 
against  the  Bible ;  but  God's  word  has  stood  firm,  and  every 
true  advance  of  science  has  only  redounded  to  its  honour. 
Christians,  therefore,  can  afford  to  bear  these  seeming  assaults 
with  exceeding  coolness.  Other  pretended  theologians  have 
been  seen  advancing,  and  then  as  easily  retracting,  novel 
schemes  of  exegesis,  to  suit  new  geologic  hypotheses.  The 
Bible  has  often  had  cause  here  to  cry,  "  Save  me  from  my 
friends."  Scarcely  has  the  theologian  announced  himself  as 
sure  of  his  discovery  that  this  is  the  correct  way  to  adjust  Reve- 
lation to  the  prevalent  hypotheses  of  the  geologists,  when  these 
mutable  gentlemen  change  their  hypothesis.  The  obsequious 
divine  exclaims :  "  Well,  I  was  in  error  then  ;  but  now  I  have 
certainly  the  right  exposition  to  reconcile  Moses  to  the  geolo- 
gists." And  again  the  fickle  science  changes  its  ground. 
What  can  be  more  degrading  to  the  authority  of  Revelation ! 
As  remarked  in  a  previous  lecture,  unless  the  Bible  has  its  own 
ascertainable  and  certain  law  of  exposition,  it  cannot  be  a  rule 
of  faith ;  our  religion  is  but  rationalism.  I  repeat,  if  any  part 
of  the  Bible  must  wait  to  have  its  real  meaning  imposed  upon 
it  by  another,  and  a  human  science,  that  part  is  at  least  mean- 
ingless and  worthless  to  our  souls.  It  must  expound  itself  inde- 
pendently ;  making  other  sciences  ancillary,  and  not  dominant 
over  it. 

It  should  be  freely  conceded  that  it  was  not  God's  purpose, 
■D     T     ^        .in  sriving:  the  Bible,  to  foreshadow  the  scien- 

4.  ropular  terms  to       ._  =>=!,-    '  ,        ,  y, 

be  expected  ;  in  Bible,  tific  rationale  o\  natural  phenomena.  Its 
Reasons.  But  not  ap-  object  is  theological.  And  the  Bible  is,  in 
plicable  to  cosmogony,  ^j^-^  ^^^^^^^^  ^  strictly  practical  book.  Hence, 
it  properly  speaks  of  those  phenomena  as  they  appear,  and  uses 
the  popular  phrases,  "  sun  rises,"  "  sun  sets,"  "sun  stood  still," 
etc.,  just  as  any  other  than  a  pedantic  astronomer  would,  when 
not  expressly  teaching  astronomy.  Hence,  we  admit,  that  the 
attempt  made  by  Rome  and  the  Reformers  to  array  the  Bible 
against  the  Copernican  System  was  simply  foolish.  The  Bible 
only  professed  to  speak  of  the  apparent  phase  of  the  facts  ;  the 
theory  of  the  astronomer  professed  to  give  the  non-apparent, 
scientific  mechanism  of  the  facts.  So  far  as  geology  does  the 
analogous  thing,  we  should  have  no  quarrel  with  it.  But  how 
far  does  this  concession  go  ?  When  Moses  seems  to  say  that 
God  created  the  world  and  its  inhabitants  out  of  nothing,  are 
we  at  liberty  to  treat  him  as  we  do  Joshua,  when  he  speaks  of 
the  sun  as  standing  still  ?  I  think  not.  First:  Moses'  reference 
to  the  facts  of  creation  is  not,  like  Joshua's  reference  to  the 
17* 


258  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

astronomical  event,  merely  incidental  to  a  narrative  of  human 
history,  but  is  a  statement  of  what  is  as  much  a  theological  doc- 
trine as  a  natural  fact,  introduced  by  him  for  its  own  theological 
purpose.  Second  :  Joshua's  language  is  defended,  as  being 
true  to  the  apparent  phase  of  the  event.  But  creation  had  no 
apparent  phase  ;  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  had  no  human 
spectators.  There  is  no  popular  language  about  world-making, 
conformed  to  the  seeming  phenomenon,  as  we  have  about  the 
moving  and  setting  suns  which  we  daily  seem  to  behold ;  for 
none  of  us,  of  any  generation,  have  witnessed  the  exterior 
appearances  of  world-making.  Hence,  I  must  believe  that  we 
are  not  authorized  to  class  the  declarations  of  Moses  here,  with 
those  of  these  oft-cited  passages. 

It  is  an  all-important  point  that,  if  debate  arises  between  a 

geologic  hypothesis  and  the  fair  and   natural 

5   Burden  of  proof    n-,eaning  of  the  Bible  touching  cosmogony, 

restb  on  Geologists.  »       .  111  re 

the  geologist  must  bear  the  burden  01  proof. 

We  are  entitled  to  claim  this,  because  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  is  in  prior  possession  of  the  field,  in  virtue  of  its  own 
independent,  historical,  prophetic,  internal  and  spiritual  eviden- 
ces, and  of  the  immense  and  irreparable  stake  which  every 
awakened  soul  has  in  its  truth.  Hence,  the  geologist  does  not 
dislodge  the  Bible,  until  he  has  constructed  his  own  independ- 
ent, and  exclusive,  and  demonstrative  evidence  that  his  hypoth- 
esis must  be  the  true  one,  and  the  only  true  one.  Has  the 
science  ever  done  this  ?  This  logical  obligation  geologists 
perpetually  forget.  They  perpetually  substitute  a  "  may  be" 
for  a  "  must  be."  As  soon  as  they  hit  upon  a  hypothesis 
which,  it  appears,  may  satisfy  the  known  facts,  they  leap  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  is  the  obviously,  the  only  true  one.  But  now, 
our  position  is  not  approached  until  such  a  complete,  and  exclu- 
sive demonstration  is  made.  We  are  under  no  obligation,  in 
order  to  defend  ourselves,  to  substantiate  another  hypothesis  by 
geologic  reasoning;  our  defence  is  complete,  when  we  show  by 
such  argument  that  their  hypothesis  comes  short  of  an  exclusive 
and  perfect  demonstration.  It  requires,  as  yet,  little  knowledge 
to  show  this ;  when  the  leading  geologists  are  still  differing  be- 
tween themselves,  touching  the  igneous,  the  aqueous,  the  gradual 
and  the  sudden  systems ;  when  effects  are  so  hastily  and  confi- 
dently ascribed  to  one  species  of  natural  agency,  which  may, 
very  possibly,  have  been  effected  by  it,  or  by  one  of  several 
other  possible  agencies ;  when  we  see  the  greatest  names 
assuming  as  premises  for  important  deductions,  statements 
which  are  corrected  by  the  practical  observation  of  plain  men ; 
from  the  oversight  of  important  questions  as  to  the  consistency 
and  feasibility  of  their  theories  of  cosmogony,  with  observed 
facts;  and  last,  from  the  truth  that  the  most  truly  scientific  are 
most  cautious  in  asserting  any  such  scheme  with  confidence. 

I  have  reserved  the  most  vital  point  to  the  last.     It  is  this : 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  259 

6.  Usual  inference  of  The  structures  of  nature  around  us  cannot 
cause  from  observed  present  by  their  traits  of  naturalness,  a  uni- 
resemblances.  versally  demonstrative  proof  of  a  natural,  as 

against  a  supernatural  origin,  upon  any  sound,  theistic  theory. 
Because,  supposing  a  Creator,  originating  any  structures  or 
creatures  supernaturally.  He  must  also  have  conferred  on  His 
first  things  traits  of  naturalness.  Hence,  should  it  be  found 
that  the  Creator  has  uttered  His  testimony  to  the  supernatural 
origin  of  any  observed  things,  that  testimony  cuts  across  and 
supersedes  all  the  arguments  a  posteriori,  from  natural  analogies 
to  a  natural  origin.  Thus,  many  geologists,  seeing  that  sedi- 
mentary action  by  water  now  produces  some  stratified  rocks, 
claim  that  they  are  entitled,  by  the  similarity  of  effects,  to 
ascribe  all  stratified  rocks  to  sedimentary  action.  This,  they 
say,  is  but  a  fair  application  of  the  axiom,  that  "  like  causes 
produce  like  effects,"  v.'hich  is  the  very  corner-stone  of  all  induc- 
tive science.  But  the  real  proposition  they  employ  is  the  con- 
verse of  this:  that  like  effects  imply  like  causes.  Now,  first: 
it  is  trite  as  true,  that  the  proof  of  a  proposition  does  not  prove 
its  converse.  Second  :  the  theist  has  expressly  admitted 
another  cause,  namely,  an  infinite,  personal  Creator,  confessedly 
competent  to  any  effect  He  may  choose  to  create.  Hence,  all 
theists  are  compelled  to  admit  that  the  natural,  a  posteriori 
argument  cannot  universally  hold,  as  to  the  origin  of  beings. 
Once  admit  a  Creator,  and  that  argument  remains,  in  every  case 
where  the  Creator's  absence  is  not  proved  by  some  positive 
evidence  other  than  physical,  the  invalid  species  of  induction, 
which  Bacon  exploded  under  the  name  of  i)iductio  emimerationis 
simplicis.  Nov.  Organum,  Lib.  i,  §  105.  ''  Inductio  enim,  quee 
procedit  per  etmineratioiicui  simplicem,  res  piierilis  est,  et  precario 
concludit,  et  perictilo  ey.po7iitnr  ab  i?istantia  contradictoria,"  &c. 
In  the  case  under  discussion,  any  natural  structure  originated 
by  the  Creator,  would  be  such  a  contradictory  instance. 
Unless  then  the  divine  cause  is  excluded  by  some  other  than 
physical  evidence,  such  induction  can  never  be  universally 
valid.  Third :  A  wise  God  always  has  some  "  final  cause," 
guiding  His  action.  We  may  not  be  presumptuous  in  surmis- 
ing, in  every  case,  what  His  final  cause  was;  but  when  His  own 
subsequent  action  has  disclosed  it,  we  are  on  safe  ground  ;  we 
may  assuredly  conclude  that  the  use  to  which  He  has  actually 
put  a  given  thing  is  the  use  for  which  He  designed  it.  When, 
therefore,  we  see  Him  subjecting  all  structures  to  natural  law, 
we  know  that  those  which  He  himself  created,  He  designed  to 
subject  to  such  law.  Then,  He  must  have  created  them  as  nat- 
ural as  though  their  origin  also  had  been  from  nature.  Fourth  : 
To  the  theist,  this  argument  is  especially  clear  as  to  living, 
organized  creatures.  Supposing  a  Creator,  the  first  of  each 
species  must  have  received  from  the  supernatural,  creative 
hand,  every  trait  of  naturalness ;  else  it  could  not  have  fulfilled 


260  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  end  for  which  it  was  made ;  to  be  the  parent  of  a  species. 
What  are  the  attributes  connoted  by  the  name  of  any  species  ? 
Natural  History  answers :  they  are  precisely  those  regularly 
transmitted  by  natural  generation..  Then,  in  order  to  be  the 
parent  of  a  natural  species,  the  first  thing,  while  supernatural  in 
origin,  must  have  been  thoroughly  natural  in  all  essential  traits. 
Fifth  :  If  we  deny  this,  we  must  assign  a  natural  parent  before 
the  first-created  parent  of  each  species  of  generated  organisms. 
Thus  we  should  be  involved  in  a  multitude  of  infinite  series, 
without  cause  external  to  themselves ;  a  result  which  science 
herself  has  repudiated,  as  an  impossible  absurdity.  Suppose 
then,  that  by  some  chance,  a  physicist  should  examine  the  very 
remains  of  one  of  those  organisms  which  God  creatively  pro- 
duced, as  a  bone  of  Adam's  body ;  he  would,  of  course,  find  in 
it  the  usual  traits  of  naturalness.  Yet  he  could  not  thence 
infer  for  this  thing  a  natural  origin ;  since,  according  to  the  sup- 
posed case,  it  was  a  first  thing.  Hence,  it  is  concluded  with 
mathematical  rigidity,  that  when  we  grant  an  omnipotent  Crea- 
tor anywhere  in  the  past,  the  argument  from  naturalness  of 
traits  to  a  natural  origin  ceases  to  be  universally  conclusive. 

This   case    is    exactly    illustrated    by    what   lawyers    term 

"circumstantial  evidence"  in  a  court  of  jus- 

lUustrated  by  Cir-    ^j^g_     jj^^  science  of  law,  charged  with  the 

cumstantial   Evidence.  ,  .  r  i-r  1111  1 

solemn  issues  of  life  and  death,  has  exactly 
defined  the  proper  rules  for  this  species  of  evidence.  Before  a 
man  can  be  convicted  upon  circumstantial  evidence,  the  prose- 
cution must  show  that  their  hypothesis  of  his  guilt  not  only 
may  satisfy  all  the  circumstances  known,  but  that  it  is  the  only 
possible  hypothesis.  And  the  enlightened  judge  will  rule,  that 
the  defence  are  entitled  to  test  that  fact  even  by  their  imagina- 
tions. If  they  can  suppose  or  invent  another  hypothesis, 
unsupported  by  a  single  positive  proof,  that  demonstrates  the 
fact,  that  the  hypothesis  of  guilt  is  not  the  only  possible  one, 
the  accused  must  be  discharged.  But  let  us  suppose  that, 
just  when  the  circumstantial  evidence  of  guilt  seemed  com- 
plete, an  eye-witness  is  adduced,  who  swears  that  he  saw  the 
crime  perpetrated  by  another.  Let  us  suppose  that  other 
agent  was  naturally  competent  to  the  act.  Then  the  judge 
will  rule,  that  the  whole  farther  discussion  must  turn  on  the 
consistency  and  credibility  of  that  witness.  He  will  say  to  the 
accusers :  that  if  they  have  any  valid  way  to  impugn  the  wit- 
ness' competency,  or  credibility,  they  may  do  so ;  otherwise,  in 
presence  of  his  positive  evidence,  their  circumstantial  proof,  in 
spite  of  all  its  ingenuity  and  plausibility,  is  utterly  broken 
down.  Now  the  a  posteriori  argument  of  the  geologists  is  such 
a  circumstantial  proof.  The  Bible  is  the  parole-witness ;  if  its 
competency  and  trustworthiness  stand,  their  case  has  collapsed 
before  it. 

Again  :  why  should  the  Theistic  philosopher  desire  to  push 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  26 1 

back  the  creative  act  of  God  to  the  remotest  possible  age,  and 
reduce  His  agency  to  the  least  possible  mmiinum,  as  is  continu- 
ally done  in  these  speculations?  What  is  gained  by  it?  In- 
stead of  granting  that  God  created  a  xoafio::,  a  world,  some 
strive  continually  to  show  that  He  created  only  the  rude  germs 
of  a  world,  ascribing  as  little  as  possible  to  God,  and  as  much 
as  possible  to  natural  law.  Cni  bono  ;  if  you  are  not  hankering 
after  Atheism  ?  Is  a  completed  result  any  harder  for  infinite 
powers  than  a  germinal  one  ?  What  is  natural  law ;  and  what 
its  source  ?  It  originated  in  the  creative  power,  and  is  main- 
tained, energized,  and  regulated  by  the  perpetual  providence  of 
God.  Do  you  crave  to  push  God  away,  as  far  as  possible  ?  It 
does  not  help  you  to  say,  natural  law  directed  the  formation  of 
this  mass  of  marble,  instead  of  supernatural  creation  ;  for  God 
is  as  near  and  as  infinite  in  His  common,  natural,  as  in  His  first, 
supernatural  working. 

But  if  you  must  persist  in   recognizing  nothing  but  natural 

forces,  wherever  you  see  a  natural  analogy,  I 
Illustrated  by  Nebu-     ^j^  gj^^^^  ^j^^^  j^.  ^^ju  j^^^ j  y^^,^  jf  ^^^  ^^^ 

i3.r  xTypOLricsis-  ,  _  -  /■      i        i  i 

consistent,  no  where  short  oi  absolute  athe- 
ism. Suppose  that  nebular  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  solar 
system  were  true,  which  the  anti-Christian,  La  Place,  is  said  to 
have  suggested  as  possible,  and  which  so  many  of  our  nominal 
Christians  have  adopted,  without  proof,  as  certain.  An  obser- 
ver from  some  other  system,  fully  imbued  with  the  principles  of 
modern  science,  comes  to  inspect,  at  the  stage  that  he  finds  only 
a  vast  mass  of  incandescent  vapor,  rotating  from  west  to  east 
around  an  axis  of  motion.  If  he  uses  the  confident  logic  of 
our  geologists,  he  must  reason  thus  :  "  Matter  is  naturally  inert; 
vionientum  must  come  from  impact ;  therefore,  this  rotary 
motion  which  I  now  behold,  must  be  the  result  of  some  prior 
force,  either  mechanical,  electrical,  or  some  other.  And  again, 
I  see  only  vapor.  Vapor  implies  evaporation ;  and  sensible 
heat  suggests  latent  heat,  rendered  sensible  either  by  electrical 
or  chemical  action,  or  compression.  There  must,  therefore, 
have  been  a  previous,  different,  and  natural  condition  of  this 
matter  now  volatilized,  heated,  and  rotating.  The  geologists  of 
the  19th  century,  therefore,  will  be  mistaken  in  calling  this  the 
primitive  condition  of  the  system."  Before  each  first,  then, 
there  must  still  be  another  first.  This  is,  therefore,  the  eternity 
of  Naturalism — it  is  Atheism. 

This  argument   is  usually  dismissed  by  geologists  with  a 
Argument   just,    as    sort  of  summary  contempt,or  with  a  grand  out- 
against   exclusion    of    cry  of  opposition.      It  does  indeed  cut  deep 
^''^^'°''-  into    the    seductive    pride    of  their    science, 

sweeping  off  at  one  blow  that  most  fascinating  region,  the  in- 
finite past.  It  is  urged,  for  instance,  that  my  argument  would 
subvert  the  foundations  of  all  natural  science.  They  exclaim, 
that  to  concede  this  would  be  to  surrender  the  whole  organon 


2t)2  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

of  scientific   discovery.     I  answer,   no.     Within   the  domain  of 

time,  the  known  past  of  human  history,  where  its  testimony  proves 

the  absence  of  the  supernatural,  the  analogical  induction  is  per-. 

fectly    valid.       And    there    is    the    proper    domain    of    natural 

science.     In  that  field,  their    method  of  reasoning  is  a  useful 

organon,  and  a  legitimate  ;  let  them  use  it  there,  to  the  full,  for 

the  good  of  man.     But   in  the    unknown  eternity  of  the  past, 

prior  to  human  history,  it  has   no   place ;  it  is  like  the  mariner's 

compass  carried  into  the  stellar  spaces.     That  compass  has  a 

known  attraction  for  the  poles  of  this  globe ;  and  therefore  on 

this  globe,   it   is   a   valued  guide.     But  away  in   the  region  of 

Sirius,  where  we  know  not  wheth-er  the  spheres  have  poles,  or 

whether  they  are  magnetic,  it  is  naught.     He  who  should  follow 

it  would  be  a  madman. 

Another  objection,   supposed  to  be  very  strong,  is  drawn 

^  .     .      .       ^        from   the  fossil  remains   of  life.     The  geolo- 
Omection  from  Fos-        •    .  ,    .  i        ,  i         .  i.    -      i 

sils  aiiswered.  gists    say    trmmphantly,    that    however    one 

might  admit  my  view  as  to  the  mere  strata,  it 
would  be  preposterous  when  applied  to  the  remains  of  plants 
and  animals  buried  in  these  strata,  evidently  alive  thousands 
of  ages  ago.  They  assert  roundly  that,  in  order  to  make  any 
application  of  this  argument,  anywhere,  I  shall  have  to  hold  the 
preposterous  assertion,  that  all  the  fossil  remains  of  vegetable 
and  animal  life,  which  lived  during  the  vast,  pre-Adamite  ages, 
are  mere  stones,  never  alive  :  or  that,  in  other  words,  we  must 
refuse  the  evidence  of  our  own  senses,  and  suppose  the  Creator 
imposed  this  cheat  on  them.  This  supposed  consequence  we 
expressly  repudiate.  And  it  is  very  easy  to  show  that  it  does 
not  follow.  In  attempting  to  fix  the  relative  age  and  order  of 
strata  and  fossils,  geology  reasons  in  a  circle.  Sir  Chas.  Lyell 
states  that  a  stratigraphical  order  has  been  inferred  from  three 
classes  of  data.  i.  The  observed  order  of  strata  where  actu- 
ally found  in  juxtaposition.  2.  The  kinds  of  organic  life  con- 
tained in  the  different  strata.  3.  The  material  and  structure  of 
the  strata  themselves.  Evidently  such  inferences  are  invalid, 
from  two  grounds.  First  :  they  have  not  proved  that  the  azoic 
stratified  rocks,  a  large  class  by  their  own  showing,  may  not 
have  had  an  immediate,  supernatural  origin  :  for  I  have  evinced 
that  their  naturalness  of  structure  alone  is  no  proof  against  this. 
If  then,  these  stratified  rocks  are  really  as  old  as  the  igneous^ 
here  is  a  huge  chasm  in  their  system.  Second  :  They  reason 
in  a  circle,  in  that  they  argue  the  relative  oldness  of  certain 
fossils  from  the  strata  in  which  they  are  found  ;  and  then  argue 
the  oldness  of  the  strata  from  the  assumed  age  of  the  fossils. 
For  instance :  they  conclude  that  the  non-fossiliferous  clay- 
slate  is  a  very  old  stratified  rock,  because  without  fossils. 
Again,  they  have  concluded  that  some  given  species  of  fossil  life 
is  very  old,  because  found  in  a  stratum  very  near  that  very  old 
slate.     Then  they  infer  that  some   other  stratum  is  very  old. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  263 

because  this  fossil  is  found  in  it !  Third :  Concede  once  (I  care 
not  where  in  the  unknown  past)  an  almighty  Creator  of  infinite 
understanding,  (as  you  must,  if  you  are  not  an  atheist,)  and  then 
both  power  and  motive  for  the  production  of  these  living  struc- 
tures at  and  after  a  supernatural  creation,  become  infinitely  pos- 
sible. It  would  be  an  insane  pride  of  mind,  which  should  con- 
clude that,  because  it  could  not  comprehend  the  motive  for  the 
production,  death,  and  entombment  of  all  these  creatures  under 
such  circumstances,  therefore  it  cannot  be  reasonable  for  the 
Infinite  Mind  to  see  such  a  motive.  So  that  my  same  formula 
applies  here  also.  Once  concede  an  Infinite  Creator,  and  all 
inferences  as  to  the  necessarily  natural  origin  of  all  the  struc- 
tures seen,  are  fatally  sundered. 

In  fine,  if  that  account  of  the  origin  of  the  universe,  which 

^      .     ,    ,  ,  theology  gives  us,  is  to  be  heeded  at  all,  the 

Creation  had  a  moral    r  ^^        ^      °  ,  ,      1  -i  1  •      1 

gj^(j_  tollowmg  appears  the  most  philosophical  con- 

ception of  a  creation  :  That  God,  in  produ- 
cing a  world  which  His  purposes  required  to  pass  under  the 
immediate  domain  of  natural  laws,  would  produce  it  with  just 
the  properties  which  those  laws  perpetuate  and  develope.  And 
here  appears  a  consideration  which  brings  theology  and  cos- 
mogony into  unison.  What  was  God's  true  end  in  the  creation 
of  a  material  world  ?  Reason  and  Scripture  answer :  To  furnish 
a  stage  for  the  existence  and  action  of  a  moral  and  rational  crea- 
ture. The  earth  was  made  for  man  to  inhabit.  As  the  light 
would  be  but  darkness,  were  there  no  eye  to  see,  so  the  moral 
design  of  the  world  would  be  futile  without  a  human  mind  to 
comprehend  it,  and  praise  its  Maker.  Now,  such  being  God's 
end  in  creation,  it  seems  much  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
He  would  produce  at  once  the  world  which  He  needed  for  His 
purpose,  rather  than  spend  hundreds  of  thousands  of  years  in 
growing  it. 


LECTURE  XXIV. 

ANGELS.       ' 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Prove  the  existence  and  personality  of  Angels;  and  show  the  probable  time  of 
their  creation. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  vii,  Qu.  2,  3,  5,  6,  7.  Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  i,  ch.  14.  Dick, 
Lect.  38.     Knapp,  §  58,  59. 

2.  What  is  revealed  of  their  numbers,  nature,  powers  and  ranks  ? 

Turrettin,  as  above.     Dick  and  Calvin,  as  above.     Knapp,  as  above,  and  §  61. 

3.  In  what  moral  state  were  they  created,  and  under  what  covenant  were  they 
placed?     How  did  this  probation  result  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  vii,  Qu.  4,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  5,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  8,  g  1-8.  Dick,  Lect. 
39.     Calvin,  as  above. 

4.  What  are  the  offices  of  the  good  angels  ?  Have  the  saints  individual  guardian 
angels  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  vii,  Qu.  8.     Dick,  Lect.  38.     Calvin,  as  above,     Knapp,  g  60. 

5.  Prove  the  personality  and  headship  of  Satan,  and  the  personal  existence  of 
his  angels. 

Calvin  as  above.     Dick  as  above.     Knapp,  ^  62,  63. 

6.  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  as  to  the  powers  of  evil  angels  over  natural 
elements  and  animal  bodies  ;  over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men  :  in  demoniacal  pos- 
sessions of  ancient  and  modern  times ;  in  witchcraft  and  magic,  and  of  the  grade  of 
guilt  of  wizards,  &c.  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  vii,  Qu.  5,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  5,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  8,  §  18.  Calvin's 
Inst.,  bk.  i,  ch.  14,  §  13-20.  Ridgeley,  Qu.  19.  Knapp,  g  64  to  66.  Com- 
mentaries. 

7.  What  personal  Christian  duties  result  from  this  exposure  to  the  assaults  of  evil 
angels  ? 

A  gainst  ancient  Sadducees,  who  taught  neither  resurrection, 

angel,  nor  spirit,  (Acts  xxiii :  8)  and  made  the  angels  only 

^  ,  ,   good   thoughts   and    motions  visiting-  human 

I.     Personality      of    P  ,  j  ,  c    j  1 

Angels.  breasts  ;  and  our  modern  hadducees,  among 

Rationalists,  Socinians  and  Universalists,  who 
teach  that  they  are  impersonations  of  divine  energies,  or  of 
good  and  bad  principles,  or  of  diseases  and  natural  influences; 
we  prove  the  real,  personal  existence  of  angels  thus :  The 
Scriptures  speak  of  them  as  having  all  the  acts  and  properties, 
which  can  characterize  real  persons.  They  were  created, 
by  God,  through  the  agency  of  the  Son.  Col.  i :  16;  Gen.  ii :  i  ; 
Exod.  xx:ii.  Have  a  nature,  for  Christ  did  not  assume  it, 
Heb.  ii:i6.  Are  holy  or  unholy,  Rev.  xiv :  10.  Love  and 
rejoice,  Luke  xv  :  10.  Desire,  i  Pet.  i:  12.  Contend,  Rev.  xii : 
7.  Worship,  Heb.  i :  6.  Go  and  come,  Gen.  xix  :  i  ;  Luke  ix  : 
26.  Talk,  Zech.  i:9;  Luke  1:13.  Have  knowledge  and  wis- 
dom, (finite)  2  Sam.  xiv  :  20  ;  Matt,  xxiv  :  36.  Minister  in 
various  acts.  Matt,  xiii :  29,  49;  Luke  xvi :  22  ;  Acts  v:i9. 
Dwell  with  saints,  who  resemble  them,  in  heaven.  Matt,  xxii :  30, 
&c.  If  all  this  language  was  not  intended  to  assure  us  of  their 
personal  existence,  then  there  is  no  dependence  to  be  placed  on 
the  word  of  God,  or  the  laws  of  its  interpretation. 
264 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  265 

The  name  angel  (messenger)  is  indeed  applied  to  ordinary 
imessengers,  Job  i:  14;  Luke  vii:24;  to  prophets,  Is.  xliiiiQ: 
Mai.  iii :  I  ;  to  priests,  Mai.  ii :  7 ;  to  ministers  of  the  Church, 
Rev.  i :  20,  and  to  the  Messiah,  Mai.  iii :  i  ;  Is.  Ixiii :  9,  &c.,  &c. 
But  the  other  sense  of  personal  and  spiritual  existences,  is  none 
the  less  perspicuous.  They  are  called  angels  generally,  because 
they  fulfill  missions  for  God. 

The  invisible  and  spiritual  nature  of  these  beings  does  not 
make  their  existence  less  credible,  to  any, 
poSr^  '''^^*"'''  except  atheists  and  materialists.  True,  we 
have  no  sensible  experience  of  their  exist- 
ence. Neither  have  we,  directly,  of  our  own  souls,  nor  of  God. 
If  the  existence  of  pure,  finite  spirits  is  impossible,  then  man 
cannot  be  immortal ;  but  the  death  of  the  body  is  the  death  of 
the  being.  Indeed,  analogy  would  rather  lead  us  to  infertile  ex- 
istence of  angels,  from,  the  almost  numberless  gradations  of  beings 
below  man.     Is  all  the  vast  gap  between  him  and  God  a  blank  ? 

To  fix  the  date  of  the  creation  of  angels  is  more  difficult. 
Date  unknown  ^^^^  °^*^   opinion  of  the  orthodox  Reformers 

was,  that  their  creation  was  a  part  of  the  first 
day's  work,  (a.)  Because  they,  being  inhabitants,  or  hosts 
(see  Ps.  ciii :  21  ;  cxlviii :  2)  of  heaven,  were  created  when  the 
"heavens  were.  But  see  Gen.  i:i;  ii :  i  ;  Exod.  xx:ii.  (b.) 
Because  Scripture  seems  to  speak  of  all  the  past  eternity 
"before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  as  an  unbroken  infinity, 
in  which  nothing  existed  except  the  uncreated ;  so  that  to  speak 
of  a  being  as  existing  before  that,  is  in  their  language,  to  rep- 
resent him  as  uncreated.  See  Prov.  viii  :  22 ;  Ps.  xc  :  2  ;  Jno. 
i:i.  Now  I  concede  that  the  including  of  the  angels  with 
the  heavens,  under  the  term  hosts  of  them,  is  correct.  But  first, 
the  angels  were  certainly  already  in  existence  when  this  earth 
was  begun.  See  Job  xxxviii :  7.  Second  :  the  "  beginning  "  in 
which  God  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Gen.  i :  i,  is  by  no 
means  necessarily  the  first  of  the  six  creative  days.  Nor  does 
Gen.    ii:i,("Thus   were    finished,"  is  an  unnecessarily  strong 

rendering  of  ^^^*'1)  prove  it.     Hence,  third,  it  may  be  granted 

that  the  beginning  of  the  creation  of  God's  created  universe 

... 

may  mark  the  dividing  point  between  unsuccessive  eternity,  and 
successive  time,  and  between  the  existence  of  the  uncreated 
alone,  and  of  the  creature ;  and  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  this 
point  was  the  first  of  the  Mosaic  days.  Hence,  it  is  best  to 
say,  with  Calvin,  that  the  age  of  the  angels  is  unrevealed, 
except  that  they  are  older  than  the  world  and  man. 

The   angels   are    exceedingly  numerous.      Gen.    xxxii :  2 ; 

2.    Qualities   of  the     ^^']-    ^^^  =  "^J  u^"^"     ''  ''  '^'^  ''  ^^V  ^^^"^ 

Angels;  Incorporeal?  XXVI :  5 3  ;  Hcb.  xii:22.  Their  nature  is 
Wlience  the  forms  of  undoubtedly  spiritual,  belonging  generally  to 
«their  apparitions  ?  ^^^^    dass  '  of    substaiices    to  which    man's 


266  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

rational  soul  belongs,  They  are  called  n^vjfw-a.  Heb.  i:  13, 
14,7;  Luke  xx:36;  xxiv :  39  ;  Col.  i :  16.  'This  also  follows 
from  what  we  learn  of  their  traits,  as  intelligent  and  voluntary- 
beings,  as  invisible,  except  when  they  assume  bodies  tempora- 
rily, as  inexpressibly  quick  in  motion ;  and  as  penetrable,  so 
that  they  occupy  the  same  space  with  matter,  without  displac- 
ing or  being  displaced  by  it.  Several  supposed  objections  to 
their  mere  spirituality  have  been  mooted.  One  is,  that  they 
have,  as  we  shall  see,  so  much  physical  power.  The  answer  is, 
that  the  ultimate  source  of  all  force  is  in  spirits ;  our  limbs  only 
have  it,  as  moved  by  our  spirit's  volitions.  Another  is,  that  if 
pure  spirits,  they  would  be  ubiquitous,  because  to  suppose  any 
substance  possessed  of  locality  must  imply  that  it  is  defined 
by  extension  and  local  limits.  But  extension  cannot  be  an 
attribute  ot  spirit.  I  reply,  that  it  must  be  possible  for  a  spirit 
to  have  locality  "definitely,"  though  not  "  circumscriptively," 
because  our  conscioCisness  assures  us  that  our  spirits  are  within 
the  superficies  of  our  body,  in  some  true  sense  in  which  they 
are  not  elsewhere ;  yet  it  is  equally  impossible  for  us  to  attrib- 
ute dimension,  either  to  our  spirits  or  their  thoughts.  And  just 
as  really  as  our  spirits  pass  through  space,  when  our  bodies 
move,  so  really  angels  change  their  locality,  though  far  more 
swiftly,  by  an  actual  motion,  through  extension;  though  not 
implying  extension  in  the  thing  moved.  Again,  it  is  objected: 
angels  are  spoken  of  as  having  wings,  figure,  and  often,  human 
shape,  in  which  they  were  sometimes,  not  merely  visible,  but 
tangible,  and  performed  the  characteristic  material  acts  of  eat- 
ing and  drinking.  See  Gen.  xviii :  2,  5,  8  ;  xix  :  10,  16.  On  this 
it  may  be  remarked  that  Scripture  expressly  assigns  wings  to  no 
orders  but  cherubim  and  seraphim.  We  see  Dan.  ix  :2i,  and 
Rev.  xiv:6,  speaking  of  angels,  not  cherubim  and  seraphim,  as 
"  flying."  But  this  may  be  in  the  general  sense  of  rapid  motion ; 
not  motion  with  wings.  The  purpose  of  these  appearances  is 
obvious,  to  bring  the  presence  and  functions  of  the  angelic  visi- 
tant under  the  scope  of  the  senses  of  God's  servants,  for  some 
particular  purpose  of  mercy.  Angelic  apparitions  seem  to  have 
appeared  under  three  circumstances — in  dreams — in  states  of 
inspired  ecstacy,  and  when  the  observer  was  in  the  usual  exer- 
cise of  his  senses.  Only  the  latter  need  any  explanation  ;  for 
the  former  cases  are  accounted  for  by  the  ideal  impression  made 
on  the  conception  of  the  dreaming  or  ecstatic  mind  by  God. 
But  in  such  cases  as  that  of  Gen.  xviii  and  xix,  we  are  bound 
to  believe  that  these  heavenly  spirits  occupied  for  the  time,  real^ 
material  bodies.  Any  other  opinion  does  violence  at  once  to 
the  laws  of  exegesis  of  Scripture  language,  and  to  the  validity  of 
our  senses  as  inlets  of  certain  and  truthful  perceptions. 
Whence  then,  those  bodies?  Say  some,  they  were  the  actual 
bodies  of  living  men,  which  the  angels  occupied,  suppressing, 
for  the  nonce,  the  consciousness  and  personality  of  the  human 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  267' 

soul  to  which  the  body  belonged.  Some,  that  they  are  mate- 
rial, but  glorified  substances,  kept  in  heaven,  ready  for  the  occas- 
ional occupancy  of  angels  on  their  missions ;  as  we  keep  a  Sun- 
day-coat in  our  wardrobes.  Some,  that  they  were  aerial  bodies, 
composed  of  compacted  atmosphere,  formed  thus  for  their  tem- 
porary occupancy,  by  divine  power,  and  then  dissolved  into  air 
again.  And  still  others,  that  they  were  created  by  God  for 
them,  out  of  matter,  as  Adam's  body  was,  and  then  laid  aside. 
Where  God  has  not  seen  fit  to  inform  us,  I  think  it  best  to  have 
no  opinion  on  this  mysterious  subject.  The  Scriptures  plainly 
show  us,  that  this  incorporation  is  temporary. 

The  angels  are  intelligent  and  voluntary  beings,  as  is  most 
manifest,  from  their  functions  of  praising, 
gent^ao-ents?'^  ^  '"'^  '  worshipping,  teaching  the  prophets,  and  min- 
istering to  saints,  and  from  their  very  spirit- 
uality ;  for  thought  is  the  characteristic  attribute  of  spirit.  We 
naturally  infer  that  as  angels  are  incorporeal,  they  have  neither 
senses,  nor  sensation,  nor  literal  language.  Since  our  senses  are 
the  inlets  of  all  our  objective  knowledge,  and  the  occasional 
causes  of  all  mental  action,  we  have  no  experience  nor  concep- 
tion of  a  knowledge  without  senses.  But  it  does  not  seem 
unreasonable  to  believe  that  our  bodies  obstruct  the  cognitions 
of  our  souls,  somewhat  as  imprisoning  one  within  solid  walls  does 
his  communication  with  others ;  that  our  five  senses  are  the  win- 
dows, pierced  through  this  barrier,  to  let  in  partial  perceptions ; 
and  that  consequently,  the  disembodied  soul  perceives  and 
knows  somehow,  with  vastly  greater  freedom  and  fulness,  by 
direct  spiritual  apprehension.  Yet  all  of  the  knowledge  of 
angels  is  not  direct  intuition.  No  doubt  much  of  it  is  mediate 
and  deductive,  as  is  so  much  of  ours  ;  for  the  opposite  form  of 
cognition  can  only  be  universal,  in  an  infinite  understanding.  It 
is  very  clear  also,  that  the  knowledge  of  angels  is  finite  and  sus- 
ceptible of  increase.  Mark,  xiii  :  32  ;  Eph.  iii  :  10  ;  i  Pet. 
i  :  12;  Dan.  viii  :  l6.  Turrettin's  four  classes  of  angelic  knowl- 
edge— natural,  experimental,  supernatural,  and  revealed — 
might,  I  think,  be  better  arranged  as  their  concreated,  their 
acquired,  and  their  revealed  knowledge.  It  is,  in  fine,  clear  that 
their  knowledge  and  wisdom  are  great.  They  appear,  Dan. 
and  Rev.,  as  man's  teachers,  they  are  glorious  and  splendid 
creatures,  and  they  enjoy  more  favour  and  communion  from 
God.     See  also,  2.  Sam.  xiv  :  20. 

They  are  also   beings  of  great  power;  passing  over  vast 
spaces  with    almost    incredible  speed,    Dan. 
°^^''^'  ix  :  23  ;  exercising  portentous  physical  pow- 

ers, 2  Kings  xix  ;  35  ;  Zech.  xii  :  8  ;  Acts  xii  :  7,  lO  ;  Matt, 
xxviii  :  2,  and  they  are  often  spoken  of  as  mighty  beings  Ps. 
ciii  :  20 ;  Rev.  x  :  i  ;  v  :  2,  and  are  spoken  of  as  d'jwj.nttz,  prin- 
cipalities, &c.,  Eph.  vi  :  12  ;  2  Thess.  i:  7.  This  power  is  un- 
doubtedly always  within  God's  control,  and  never  truly  super- 


268  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

natural,  although  superhuman.  It  seems  to  have  extended  at 
times,  by  God's,  permission,  to  men's  bodies,  to  diseases,  to  the 
atmosphere,  and  other  elements. 

The  romantic  distribution  of  the  angels  into  a  hierarchy  of 
„,  .  ^  ,  three  classes  and  nine  orders,  borrowed  by 

I  heir  Orders.  .1        t»  i       t^-  •         r  1        tm  •    • 

the   rseudo  Dionysius  irom  the  rlatomzmg 

Jews,  need  not  be  refuted  here.  It  is  supposed  by  many  Prot- 
estants, that  there  are  differences  of  grade  among  angels, 
(though  what,  we  know  not,)  from  the  fact — (a)  That  Paul 
uses  several  terms  to  describe  them.  Col.  i  :  16;  (b)  That  there 
is  at  least  one  superior  angel  among  the  evil  angels ;  (c)  That 
we  hear  of  an  archangel,  Michael ;  (d)  That  God's  terrestrial 
works  exhibit  every  where,  gradations. 

If,  as  some  suppose,  Michael  is  identical  with  the  Angel  of 
the  Covenant,  the  third  of  these  considera- 
of  Covenant"  "^^  tions  is  removed.  Their  reasons  are,  that  he 
is  called  the  Archangel,  and  is  the  only  one 
to  whom  the  title  is  given ;  that  he  is  called  the  Prince,  and 
great  Prince,  who  stood  for  Israel,  (Dan.  x  :  21;  xii  :  i,)  and 
that  he  is  seen,  (Rev.  xii  :  7,)  heading  the  heavenly  war  against 
Satan  and  his  kingdom  ;  a  function  suited  to  none  so  well  as  to 
the  Messiah.  But  it  is  objected,  with  entire  justice,  that  his  name 
(Who  is  as  God  ?)  is  not  any  more  significant  of  the  Messiah  than 
that  of  Michaiah,  and  is  several  times  the  name  of  a  man  — 
that  he  is  one,  "one  of  the  chief  princes."  Dan.  x  :  13.  That 
in  Jude,  he  was  under  authority  in  his  dispute  over  Moses' 
body,  and  that  he  is  plainly  distinguished  from  Christ,  (i  Thess. 
■iv  :  16,)  where  Christ  descends  from  heaven  with  the  voice  of 
the  archangel,  and  trump  of  God. 

A  more  difficult  question  is,  what  were  the  cherubim  men- 
Cherubim.  What?  ^,1°"^^'  .Gen.  iii:24;  Exod.  xxv:i8;  i 
Kmgs  VI  :  23;  Ps.  xviii  :  10 ;  Ezek.  x  :  5,  7, 
•&c.,  and  most  probably,  under  the  name  of  seraphim,  in  Is.  vi : 
2.  It  is  very  evident,  also,  that  the  "  living  creatures,  described 
in  Ezekiel's  vision,  ch.  i  :  5,  as  accompanying  the  wheels,  and 
sustaining  the  divine  throne,  were  the  same.  Dr.  Fairbairn,  the 
most  quoted  of  modern  interpreters  of  types  and  symbols, 
teaches  that  the  cherubim  are  not  existences  at  all,  but  mere 
ideal  symbols,  representing  humanity  redeemed  and  glorified. 
His  chief  argument,  omitting  many  fanciful  ones  drawn  from 
the  fourfold  nature,  and  their  wings,  &c.,  is :  that  they  are  man- 
ifestly identical  with  the  Zmo.  of  Rev.  iv  :  6-8,  which  evi- 
dently symbolize,  ch.  v  :  8-10,  somehow,  the  ransomed  Church. 
The  great  objections  are,  that  the  identification  is  not  certain, 
inasmuch  as  John's  Zoxi.  had  but  one  face  each  ;  that  there  is 
no  propriety  in  founding  God's  heavenly  throne  and  providence 
on  glorified  humanity,  as  His  immediate  attendants;  but 
chiefly,  that  while  it  might  consist  with  prophetic  vision  to 
make  them  ideal  symbols,  it  utterly  outrages  the  plain  narrative 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  269. 

of  Gen,  iii  :  24.  And  the  duty  of  the  cherubim,  there  de- 
scribed, obstructing  sinful  man's  approach  to  the  tree  of  Hfe, 
with  a  flaming  sword,  the  symbol  of  justice,  is  one  utterly 
unfitted  to  redeemed  and  glorified  humanity.  Hence,  I  believe, 
with  the  current  of  older  divines,  that  the  cherubim  are  not 
identical  with  John's  "living  creatures,"  but  are  angels,  like  all 
the  others,  real,  spiritual,  intelligent  beings ;  and  that  when  God 
was  pleased  to  appear  to  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel  in  prophetic  vision, 
they  received  temporarily  these  mixed  forms,  to  be  symbolical 
of  certain  traits  of  obedience,  intelligence,  strength,  and  swift- 
ness, which  they  show  as  ministers  of  God's  providence  and 
worshippers  of  His  upper  sanctuary.  (The  etymology  of  the 
word  is  utterly  obscure.) 

That    all    these    spiritual    beings    were   created    holy    and 
1.  The  Antrels'  first    ^appy,    is    evident    from    God's    character, 
estate,  their  probation,    which  is  incapable  of  producing '  sin  or  mis- 
and  issue  thereof.  gjy  .  ggg  Gen.  i  :  3 1  ;   from  the  frequent  use 

of  the  term  holy  angels,  and  from  all  that  is  revealed  of  their 
occupations  and  affections,  which  are  pure,  blessed  and  happy. 
The  same  truth  is  implied,  in  what  is  said,  2  Pet.  ii  :  4,  of 
"  angels  that  sinned,"  and  so  were  not  spared,  but  cast  down  to- 
hell,  and  Jude  6,  of  "angels  that  kept  not  their  first  estate." 
This  first  estate  was,  no  doubt,  in  all,  an  estate  of  holiness  and 
happiness.  As  to  the  change  which  has  taken  place  in  it,  we 
are  indeed  left  mainly  to  inference,  by  God's  word  ;  but  it  is> 
inference  so  well  supported  by  His  attributes,  and  the  analogy 
of  man's  case,  that  I  feel  a  good  degree  of  confidence  in  draw- 
ing it.  A  holy,  intelligent  creature,  would  owe  service  to  God, 
with  love  and  worship,  by  its  natural  relation  to  Him.  And' 
while  God  would  be  under  no  obligations  to  such  a  creature,  to 
preserve  its  being,  or  bestow  a  happy  immortality,  yet  His  own 
righteousness  and  benevolence  would  forbid  His  visiting  exter- 
nal suffering  on  that  creature,  while  holy.  The  natural  relation 
then,  between  such  a  creature  and  God,  would  be  this :  God- 
would  bestow  perfect  happiness,  just  so  long  as  the  creature 
continued  to  render  perfect  obedience,  and  no  longer.  For 
both  the  natural  and  legal  consequence  of  sin  would  be  spirit- 
ual death.  But  it  would  seem  that  some  of  the  angels  are  elect, 
and  these  are  now  confirmed  in  a  state  of  everlasting  holiness 
and  bhss.  For  holiness  is  their  peculiarity,  their  blessedness 
seems  complete,  and  they  are  mentioned  as  sharing  with  man 
the  heavenly  mansions,  whence  we  know  glorified  saints  will 
never  fall.  On  the  other  hand,  another  class  of, the  angels- 
have  finally  and  irrevocably  fallen  into  spiritual  death.  The 
inference  from  these  facts  would  seem  to  be,  that  the  angels, 
like  the  human  race,  have  passed  under  the  probation  of  a 
covenant  of  works.  The  elect  kept  it,  the  non-elect  broke  it;, 
the  difference  between  them  being  made,  so  far  as  God  was  the 
author  of  it,  not  by  His  efficacious  active   decree  and  grace^ 


2/0  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

but  by  His  permissive  decree,  in  which  both  classes  were 
wholly  left  to  the  freedom  of  their  wills.  God  only  determin- 
ing by  His  Providence  the  circumstances  surrounding  them, 
which  became  the  occasional  causes  of  their  different  choices, 
and  limiting  their  conduct.  On  those  who  kept  their  proba- 
tion, through  the  efficacy  of  this  permissive  decree,  God 
graciously  bestowed  confirmation  in  hohness,  adoption,  and 
inheritance  in  life  everlasting.  This,  being  more  than  a  tempo- 
rary obedience  could  earn,  was  of  pure  grace  ;  yet  not  through 
a  Mediator;  because  the  angels,  being  innocent,  needed  none. 
When  this  probation  began,  what  was  its  particular  condition, 
and  when  it  ended,  we  know  not ;  except  that  the  fall  of  Satan, 
and  most  probably  that  of  his  angels,  preceded  Adam's.  Nor 
is  the  nature  of  the  sin  known.  Some,  from  Mark  iii  :  29,  sup- 
pose it  was  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost.  Others,  from 
I  Tim.  iii :  6,  suppose  it  was  pride  ;  neither  conclusively.  Guess- 
ing is  vain,  where  there  is  no  key  to  a  solution.  It  may  very 
possibly  be  that  pride  was  the  sin,  for  it  is  one  to  which  Satan's 
spiritual  nature  and  exalted  state  might  be  liable.  The  great 
difficulty  is  how,  in  a  will  prevalently  holy,  and  not  even  swayed 
by  innocent  bodily  wants  and  appetites,  and  where  there  was  not 
in  the  whole  universe  a  single  creature  to  entice  to  sin,  the  first 
wrong  volition  could  have  place.  At  the  proper  time  I  will 
attempt  to  throw  on  this  what  light  is  in  my  power. 

The  good  angels  are  engaged,  first,  in  the  worship  and 
■  adoration  of  God.  Matt,  xviii  :  lO;  Rev. 
good  angels?^ '°"^  °  v:  II.  Second,  God  employs  them  in  ad- 
ministering His  gracious  and  providential 
government  over  the  world.  Under  this  head  we  may  notice  : 
(a)  That  they  aided  in  the  giving  of  Revelation,  as  the  Law. 
Acts  vii  :  53  ;  Gal,  iii  :  19,  and  many  prophetic  messages  and 
disclosures,  as  Dan.  x.  (b)  They  seem  to  have  some  concern 
in  social  and  national  events,  procuring  the  execution  of  God's 
purposes.  Dan.  x  :  13.  (c)  They  are  employed  to  punish  His 
enemies,  as  instruments  of  His  righteous  vengeance.  2  Kings 
xix  :  35;  Acts  xii  :  23  ;  i  Chron.  xxi  :  16.  (d)  They  are  sent 
forth  to  minister  to  those  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation. 
Heb.  i  :  14;  Acts  xii  :  7;  Ps.  xci  :  10-12,  (e)  They  guide  the 
departing  souls  of  Christians  home  to  their  mansions  in  heaven. 
Luke  xvi  :  22.  Last.  They  are  Christ's  agents  in  the  general 
judgment  and  resurrection.  ]\Latt.  xiii  :  39;  xxiv  :  31  ;  i  Thess. 
iv  :  17,  18. 

As  to  the  exact  nature  of   the   agencies   exerted    for  the 
Howexercis'ed?  ^^^"^^  ^>'  ^^^  ministering  angels.  Christians 

are  perhaps  not  very  well  instructed,  nor 
agreed.  A  generation  ago,  it  was  currently  believed  that  they 
communicated  to  their  minds  instructions  important  to  their 
duty  or  welfare,  by  dreams,  presentiments,  or  impressions.  Of 
these,  many  Christians  are  now  skeptical.     It  seems  more  cer- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  2/1 

tain  that  they  exert  an  invisible  superintendence  over  our  wel- 
fare, in  and  under  the  laws  of  nature.  Whether  they  influence 
our  waking-  minds  unconsciously  by  suggesting  thoughts  and 
feelings  through  our  law  of  associated  ideas,  is  much  debated. 
I  see  in  it  nothing  incredible.  The  pleasing  and  fanciful  idea  of 
guardian  angels  is  grounded  on  the  following  scriptures  :  Dan. 
X  :  13,  20;  Matt,  xviii :  10;  Acts  xii :  15.  The  most  that  these 
passages  can  prove  is,  that  provinces  and  countries  may  have 
their  affairs  committed  in  some  degree  to  the  special  care  of 
some  of  the  higher  ranks  of  angels ;  and  that  superstitious 
Jews  supposed  that  Peter  had  his  own  guardian  angel,  who 
might  borrow  Peter's  body  for  the  purpose  of  an  apparition. 
The  idea  has  more  support  in  New  Platonism  than  in  Scripture. 
The  personality  of  Satan  and  his  angels  is  to  be  estab- 
lished   by    an    argument    exactly  similar  to 

5.  a  an  a  eison.  ^j^^^  employed  for  the  good  angels.  Almost 
every  possible  act  and  attribute  of  personality  is  ascribed  to 
them;  so  that  we  may  say,  the  Scripture  contains  scarcely 
more  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  personal  God,  than  of  a 
Devil.  He  speaks,  goes,  comes,  reasons,  hates,  is  judged,  and 
is  punished.  See  for  instance,  such  passages  as  Matt,  iv  :  i-i  i ; 
Jno.  viii  :  44;  Job  i  :  6  to  ii  :  7. 

There   is   no   subject    on   which    we    may    more    properly 

_   .  .     -  remember  that  "  There  are  more  things  in 

ocriDturcs  induce 

over  whole  Bible  His-    heaven  and   earth   than   are    dreamed   of    in 

tory    the  form    of  the     our  philosophy." 
two  rival  Kingdoms. 

It  is  evidently  the  design  of  the  Scriptures  to  make  much 
of  Satan  and  his  work.  From  first  to  last,  the  favorite  repre- 
sentation of  the  world's  history  is,  that  it  is  the  arena  for  a 
struggle  between  two  kingdoms — Christ's  and  Satan's.  Christ 
leads  the  kingdom  of  the  good,  Satan  that  of  the  evil ;  though 
with  different  authorities  and  powers.  The  headship  of  Satan 
over  his  daemons  is  implied  where  they  are  called  "his  angels." 
He  is  also  called  Prince  of  Devils.  Eph.  ii  :  2 ;  Matt,  xxv  : 
41  ;  ix  :  34.  Prince  of  the  powers  of  the  air,  and  Prince  of 
darkness.  Eph.  vi  :  12.  This  pre-eminence  he  doubtless 
acquired  partly  by  seducing  them  at  first,  and  probably  con- 
firmed by  his  superior  powers.  His  dominion  is  compacted  by 
fear  and  hatred  of  God,  and  common  purposes  of  malice.  It 
is  by  their  concert  of  action  that  they  seem  to  approach  so 
near  to  ubiquity  in  their  influences.  That  Satan  is  also  the 
tyrant  and  head  of  sinful  men  is  equally  plain.  This  prevalent 
Bible  picture  of  the  two  kingdoms  may  be  seen  carried  out  in 
these  particulars,  (a)  Satan  originated  sin.  Gen.  iii  :  i  ;  Rev. 
xii  :  9,  10;  XX  :  2,  10;  i  Jno.  iii  :  8  ;  Jno.  viii  :  44 ;  2  Cor.  xi  : 
3.  (b)  Satan  remains  the  leader  of  the  human  and  angelic 
hosts  which  he  seduced  into  hostility,  and  employs  them  in 
desperate  resistance  to  Christ  and  His  Father.     He  is  the  "  God 


2/2  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  this  world."  2  Cor.  iv  :  4.  "  The  Spirit  that  worketh  in  the 
children  of  this  world."  Eph.  ii  :  2.  Wicked  men  are  his- 
captives.  See  above,  and  2  Tim.  ii  :  26.  He  is  "  the  Adver- 
sary "  (Satan,)  "  the  Accuser,"  [Jca^iolo:;,)  "  the  Destroyer," 
{\l-i)}./.'MO)y).  (c)  The  progress  of  Christ  to  the  final  overthrow 
of  this  kingdom  is  the  one  great  business  of  all  time ;  the  his- 
tory of  the  conflict  is  the  history  of  man  and  redemption. 
Gen.  iii  :  15  ;  Jno.  xii  :  31  ;  i  Jno.  iii  :  8-10;  i  Pet.  v  :  8;  Eph. 
vi  :  II  ;  Jno.  viii  :  44;  Mark,  iii  :  23-27;  Rom.  xvi  :  20;  Acts 
xxvi  :  18;  Luke  X  :  18.  The  single  fact  that  ungodly  men, 
until  the  end  of  the  world,  compose  Satan's  kingdom,  proves 
that  he  has,  and  will  have  some  power  or  influence  over  their 
souls. 

The  powers  of  Satan  and  his  angels  are  (a)  always,  and  in 
all  forms,  strictly  under  the  control  of  God 
gek?''""'  °^  ^^^  '^""  and  His  permissive  decree  and  providence, 
(b)  They  are  often,  perhaps,  super-human,, 
but  never  supernatural.  If  they  do  what  man  cannot,  it  is  not 
by  possession  of  omniscience  or  omnipotence,  but  by  natural 
law :  as  a  son  of  Anak  could  lift  more  than  a  common  man,  or 
a  Davy  or  Brewster  could  control  more  of  the  powers  of 
nature  than  a  peasant. 

There  is  a  supposition,  which  seems  to  have  plausible 
grounds,  that  as  the  plan  of  redemption  advances,  the  scope 
of  Satan's  operations  is  progressively  narrowed ;  just  as  the 
general  who  is  defeated,  is  cut  off  from  one  and  another  of  his 
resources,  and  hemmed  in  to  a  narrower  theatre  of  war,  until 
his  final  capture.  It  may  be,  then,  that  his  power  of  afflicting, 
human  bodies,  of  moving  the  material  elements,  of  communi- 
cating with  wizzards,  of  producing  mania  by  his  possessions, 
has  been,  or  will  be  successively  retrenched ;  until  at  last  the 
millennium  shall  take  away  his  remaining  power  of  ordinary 
temptation.  See  Luke  x  :  18:  Mark  iii  :  27;  Rev.  xx  :  3. 
But 

Satan  once  had,    and   for  anything  that   can   be   proved, 
,  .  -^  may   now  have   extensive  powers  over  the 

atmosphere  and  elements.  The  first  is 
proved  by  Job,  ch.  i  and  2.  From  this  would  naturally  follow 
influence  over  the  bodily  health  of  men.  No  one  can  prove 
that  some  pestilences  and  droughts,  tempests  and  earthquakes- 
are  not  his  work  now. 

He  once  had  at  least  an  occasional  power  of  direct  injec- 
tion of  conceptions  and  emotions,  both  inde- 
minds.  ^  ^  '^  ""^^"  pendent  of  the  man's  senses  and  suggestions. 
See  Matt,  iv  :  3,  &c.  This  is  the  counterpart 
of  the  power  of  good  angels,  seen  in  Dan.  ix  :  22 ;  Matt,  ii  : 
13.  It  this  power  which  makes  the  crime  of  witchcraft  possi- 
ble. The  wizzard  was  a  man,  and  the  witch  a  woman,  who 
was  supposed  to  communicate  with  an  evil  angel,  and  receive 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  2/3 

from  him,  at  the  cost  of  some  profane  and  damnable  price, 
power  to  do  superhuman  things,  or  to  reveal  secrets  beyond 
human  ken.  Its  criminality  was  in  its  profanity,  in  the  alliance 
with  God's  enemy,  and  its  malignity  in  employing  the  arch- 
murderer,  and  always  for  wicked  or  malicious  ends  against  oth- 
Witchcraft.  ^^^'      ""  Exod.  xxii  :  1 8,  witchcraft  is  made 

a  capital  sin ;  and  in  Gal.  v  :  20,  it  is  still 
mentioned  as  a  "  work  of  the  flesh."  Yet  some  suppose  that 
the  sin  never  could  be  really  committed.  They  account  for 
Moses'  statute  by  supposing  that  the  class  actually  existed  as 
impostors,  and  God  justly  punished  them  for  their  animus. 
This,  I  think,  is  hardly  tenable.  Others  suppose  the  sin  was 
anciently  actual ;  but  that  now,  according  to  the  supposition  of 
a  gradual  restriction,  God  no  longer  permits  it ;  so  that  all 
modern  wizzards  are  impostors.  Doubtless  there  was,  at  all 
times,  a  large  infusion  of  imposture.  Others  suppose  that  God 
still  occasionally  permits  the  sin,  relaxing  His  curb  on  Satan 
in  judicial  anger  against  men,  as  in  the  age  of  Moses.  There 
is  nothing  unscriptural  in  this.  I  do  not  admit  the  reality  of 
any  modern  case  of  witchcraft,  only  because  I  have  seen  no 
evidence  that  stands  a  judicial  examination. 

Evil   spirits  had   power  over  men's  bodies  and  souls,  by 
usurping  a  violent    control  over  their   sug- 
gestions,   emotions   and    volitions,   and   thus 
violating    their   rational   personality,   and    making    the   human 
members,  for  the  time,  their  implements.     This,  no  doubt,  was 
attended  with  unutterable  horror  and  agitation  of  consciousness, 

^,  ,  in  the   victim.      This   has   been   a   favourite 

These  real.  ,        •  r  1       •         1        i-    •  -ri. 

topic  01  neologic  skepticism.  Ihey  urge 
that  the  Evangelists  did  not  really  mean  to  teach  actual  posses- 
sion ;  but  their  object  being  theological,  and  not  medical  or 
psychological,  they  used  the  customary  language  of  their  day, 
not  meaning  thereby  to  endorse  it,  as  scientific  or  accurate  ; 
because  any  other  language  would  have  been  pedantic  and  use- 
less. They  refer  to  Josh,  x  :  12.  In  Matt,  iv  :  24,  lunatics 
{azAf^via^ouivoc)  are  named;  but  we  do  not  suppose  the  author 
meant  to  assert  they  were  moonstruck.  They  remind  us  of 
similar  cases  of  mania  now  cured  by  opiates  or  blisters.  They 
remind  us  that  "  possessions,"  like  other  superstitions,  are 
limited  to  the  dark  ages.  They  argue  that  daemons  are  said, 
Jude  6th,  to  be  in  chains,  &c. 

In  this  case  the  theory  is  incompatible  with  the  candour  of 
the  sacred  writers.  For  :  ist.  They  distinguish  between  "  pos- 
sessions" and  diseases  of  a  physiological  source,  by  mentioning 
both  separately.  See  Mark  i:  32;  Luke  vi :  17,  18;  Matt,  iv  : 
24,  &c.  2d.  The  daemons,  as  distinct  from  the  possessed  man, 
speak,  and  are  spoken  to,  are  addressed,  commanded  and  i-e- 
buked  by  our  Saviour,  and  deprecate  His  wrath.  Mark  i :  25, 
34;  ix  :  25;  Matt,  viii :  32;  xvii:  18.  3d.  They  have  perso::- 
18* 


274  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ality  after  they  go  out  of  men  ;  whereas  the  disease  has  no 
entity  apart  from  the  body  of  which  it  was  an  affection.  See 
Luke  viii:  32.  4th.  A  definite  number  of  daemons  possessed 
one  man,  Mark  v  :  9,  and  one  woman,  Mark  xvi :  9.  5th.  Their 
moral  quality  is  assigned.  6th.  The  victories  of  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  over  them,  announced  the  triumph  of  a  spiritual  king- 
dom over  Satan's.     Mark  iii :  27  ;   Luke  xi :  20. 

Do  "  possessions  "  now  exist  ?  Many  reply,  No  ;  some,  on 
the  supposition  of  a  progressive  restriction  of  Satan's  license ; 
others,  supposing  that  in  the  age  of  miracles.  Providence  made 
special  allowance  of  this  malice,  in  order  to  give  Christ  and  His 
missionaries  spcial  opjDortunity  to  evince  the  power  of  His 
kingdom,  and  show  earnests  of  its  overthrow.  The  latter  is 
one  object  of  Christ's  victories  over  these  "  possessions."  See 
Mark  iii :  27  :  Luke  xi :  20  :  x  :  1 7-20,  (where  we  have  a  sepa- 
rate proof  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  these  possessions,  as  above 
shown).  Whether  "  possessions "  occur  now,  I  do  not  feel 
qualified  to  affirm  or  deny. 

The  fourth  power  of  Satan   and  dzemons  is  doubtless  ordi- 
nary, and  will  be  until  the  millennium  ;  that 
4.     emp  a  ons.  ^^  tempting  to  sin.     This  they  may  still  carry 

on  by  direct  injection  of  conceptions,  or  affections  of  the  sensi- 
bility, without  using  the  natural  laws  of  sensibility  or  sugges- 
tion ;  and  which  they  certainly  do  practice  through  the  natural 
co-operation  of  those  laws.  Thus  :  A  given  mental  state  has  a 
natural  power  to  suggest  any  other  with  which  it  is  associated.  So 
that  of  several  associated  states,  either  one  might  naturally  arise 
in  the  mind  by  the  next  suggestion.  Now,  these  evil  spirits  seem 
to  have  the  power  of  giving  a  prevalent  vividness  (and  thus 
power  over  the  attention  and  emotions)  to  that  one  of  the  asso- 
ciated states  which  best  suits  their  malignant  purposes.  Thus  : 
shall  the  sight  of  the  wine-cup  suggest  most  vividly,  the  jollity 
and  pleasure  of  the  past,  or  the  nausea  and  remorse  that  followed 
it  ?  If  the  latter,  the  mind  will  tend  to  sobriety ;  but  if  the 
former,  it  is  tempted  to  sin.  Here  is  the  subtlety,  and  hence 
the  danger  of  these  practices,  that  they  are  not  distinguished  in 
our  consciousness  from  natural  suggestions,  because  the  Satanic 
agency  is  strictly  through  the  natural  channels. 

The  mutual  influence  of  the  physiological  states  of  the 
nerves  and  acts  of  organs  of  sense,  over  the 
boch\^  op^''^  ^  roug  mind,  and  vice  versa,  is  a  very  obscure  sub- 
ject. We  know,  at  least,  that  there  is  a  mass 
of  important  truth  there,  as  yet  partially  explored.  I\Iany 
believe  that  a  concept,  for  instance,  actually  colours  the  retina 
of  the  eye,  as  though  the  visual  spcctriivi  of  the  object  was 
formed  on  it.  All  have  experienced  the  influence  of  emotions 
over  our  sense-perceptions.  Animal  influences  on  the  organs  of 
sense  and  nerves  influence  both  concepts  and  percepts.  Now, 
ir  evil  spirits  can  produce   an   animal  effect  on  our  functions  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  275 

nervQus  sensibility,  they  have  a  mysterious  mode  of  affecting 
our  souls. 

We  must  also  consider  the  regular  psychological  law,  that 
vivid  suggestions  recurring  too  often  always 
tion^'u™ofesom?^'"  ^voke  a  morbid  action  of  the  soul.  The 
same  subject  of  anxiety,  for  instance,  too  fre- 
quently recalled,  begets  an  exaggerated  anxiety.  The  "  One- 
idea-man"  is  a  monomaniac.  It  thus  becomes  obvious,  how 
Satan  may  now  cause  various  grades  of  lunacy,  and  often  does. 
(This  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  actual  "  possessions.") 
Hence,  in  part,  religious  melancholies,  the  most  frightful  of 
mental  diseases.  The  maniac  even,  has  recessions  of  disease ; 
or  he  has  seasons  of  glee,  which,  if  maniacal,  are  actual  joy  to 
his  present  consciousness.  But  the  victim  of  religious  melan- 
choly has  no  respite ;  he  is  crushed  by  a  perpetual  incubus. 
You  can  see  how  Satan  (especially  if  bodily  disease  co-ope- 
rates) can  help  to  propagate  it  by  securing  the  too  constant 
recurrence  of  subjects  of  spiritual  doubt  or  anxiety.  You  will 
see  also,  that  the  only  successful  mode  to  deal  with  the  victims 
of  these  attacks  is  by  producing  diversion  of  the  habitual  trains 
of  thought  and  feeling. 

7.  How  powerful  is  the  motive  to  prayer,  and  gratitude  for 
exemption  from  these  calamitous  spiritual  assaults,  for  which  we 
have  no  adequate  defence  in  ourselves  ?  The  duty  of  watch- 
fulness against  temptations  and  their  occasions,  is  plain.  It 
becomes  an  obvious  Christian  duty  to  attempt  to  preserve  the 
health  of  the  nervous  system,  refraining  from  habits  and  stimu- 
lants which  may  have,  we  know  not  what  influence  on  our  ner- 
vous idiosyncrasy.  It  is  also  the  duty  of  all  to  avoid  over- 
coming and  inordinate  emotions  about  any  object ;  and  to 
abstain  from  a  too  constant  pursuit  of  any  carnal  object,  lest 
Satan  should  get  his  advantage  of  us  thereby. 

This  discussion  shows  us  how  beneficent  is  the  interruption 
of  secular  cares  by  the  Sabbath's  break. 


LECTURE  XXV. 

PROVIDENCE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Define  God's  Providence.  State  the  other  theories  of  His  practical  relation 
to  the  universe.     What  concern  has  Providence  in  physical  causes  and  laws  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  5.  Turrettin,  Loc.  vi,  Qu.  i,  2,  4.  Dick,  Lect.  41,  42. 
Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  i,  ch.  16  to  18.  "Reign  of  Law,"  by  Duke  of  Argyll. 
Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  Jan.,  1870,  Art.  i.  Knapp,  Chr.  Theol.,  Art. 
viii.     McCosh,  Div.  Gov.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  i. 

2.  Argue  the  doctrine  of  a  special,  from  that  of  a  general  Providence. 
Turrettin,  Loc.  vi,  Qu.  3.     Dick  and  Calvin  as  above. 

3.  Prove  the  doctrine  of  Providence;  (a)  from  God's  perfections;  (b)  from 
man's  moral  intuition;  (c)  from  the  observed  course  of  nature  and  human  history; 
(d)  from  the  dependence  of  creatures. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  vi,  Qu.  i.     Calvin  and  Dick  as  above.     Knapp,  Art.  viii,  |  68. 

4.  Present  the  Scriptural  argument ;  (a)  from  prophecies ;  (b)  from  express  tes- 
timonies.    Answer  objections. 

Same  authorities,  and  Dick,  Lect.  43. 

5.  Does  God's  Providence  extend  to  all  acts  of  rational  free-agents?  What  is 
His  concern  in  the  gracious  acts  of  saints?  What,  in  the  evil  acts  of  sinners  ?  Dis- 
cuss the  doctrine  of  an  immediate  coiicursus  in  the  latter. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  vi,  Qu.  4-8.  Calvin,  Inst.,  bk.  i,  ch.  18.  Witsius,  de  Oec  Fed, 
bk.  i,  ch.  8,  I  13-29.  Dick,  Lect.  42,  43.  Hill's  Div.,  bk.  .iv,  ch.  9,  I  3. 
Knapp,  Art.  viii,  I  70-72,  Hodge's  Outlines,  ch.  13.  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol., 
Vol.  i,  ch.  II,  §  1/3,  4- 

"PROVIDENTIA,  Greek,  iznovoca,  is  the  execution  in  succes- 

sive  time,  of  God's  eternal,  unsuccessive  purpose,  or  rzoodsmc. 

We  believe  the  Scriptures  to  teach,  not  only 

I  &  2.   Definitions,    ^^^  q^  oris^inated  the  whole  universe,  but 

and  other  theories.  ,  ^-r       ,  1  •  1      ■ 

that  He  bears  a    perpetual,    active    relation 

to  it ;  and  that  these  works  of  providence  are  "  His  most  holy, 
wise,  and  powerful  preserving  and  governing  all  His  creatures, 
and  all  their  actions."  It  may  be  said  that  there  are,  besides 
this,  three  other  theories  concerning  God's  relation  to  the 
Universe  ;  that  of  the  Epicurean,  who,  though  admitting  an 
intelligent  deity,  supposed  it  inconsistent  with  His  blessedness- 
and  perfections,  to  have  any  likings  or  anger,  care  or  concern  in 
the  multiform  events  of  the  worlds  ;  that  of  the  Rational  Deists, 
Socinians,  and  many  rationalists,  that  God's  concern  with  the 
Universe  is  not  universal,  special  and  perpetual,  but  only  gene- 
ral, viz:  by  first  endowing  it  with  general  laws  of  action,  to  the 
operation  of  which  each  individual  being  is  then  wholly  left, 
God  only  exercising  a  general  oversight  of  the  laws,  and  not  of 
specific  agents;  and  that  of  the  Pantheists,  who  identify  all 
seeming  substances  with  God.  by  making  them  mere  modes  of 
His  self-development ;  so  that  there  is  no  providential  relation, 
but  an  actual  identity ;  and  all  the  events  and  acts  of  the  Uni- 
verse are  simply  God  acting. 

The  first  theory  is,   as  we  shall  see,  practical  atheism,  and 
276 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  2// 

General  rrovidence  's  contradicted  by  a  proper  view  of  God's 
unreasonable  without  attributes.  The  third  has  been  already  re- 
^P'^^^^^-  futed,  as  time  and  abiHty 'allowed.     Against 

the  second,  or  Deistical,  I  object  that  the  seeming  analogy 
by  which  it  is  suggested  is  a  false  one.  That  analogy  is 
doubtless  of  human  rulers — e.  g.,  a  commander  of  an  army, 
who  regulates  general  rules  and  important  events,  without 
being  himself  cognizant  of  special  details ;  and  of  machi- 
nists, who  construct  a  machine  and  start  its  motion,  so  that  it 
performs  a  multitude  of  special  evolutions,  not  individually 
directed  by  the  maker.  The  vital  difference  is,  that  the  human 
ruler  employs  a  multitude  of  intelligent  subordinates,  inde- 
pendent of  him  for  being,  whose  intention  specifically  embraces 
the  details;  whereas  God  directs  inanimate  nature,  according  to 
deists,  without  such  intervention.  The  Platonist  conception  of 
a  providence  administered  over  particulars  by  daemons  is  more 
consistent  with  this  analogy.  And  the  machinist  does  but 
adjust  some  motive  power  which  God's  providence  supplies 
(water  on  his  wheel,  the  elasticity  of  a  spring,  &c.,)  to  move  his 
machine  in  his  absence ;  whereas  God's  providence  itself  must 
be  the  motive  power  of  His  universal  machine.  2d.  On  this 
deistical  scheme  of  providence,  results  must  either  be  fortuitous 
to  God,  (and  then  He  is  no  longer  Sovereign  nor  Almighty,  and 
we  reach  practical  atheism,)  or  else  their  occurrence  is  deter- 
mined by  Him  through  the  medium  of  causations  possessed  of 
a  physical  necessity,  (and  we  are  thus  landed  in  stoical  fate  !) 
3d.  It  is  a  mere  illusion  to  talk  of  a  certain  direction  of  the 
general,  which  does  not  embrace  the  particulars  ;  for  a  general 
class  is  nothing,  when  separated  from  the  particulars  which  com- 
pose it,  but  an  abstraction  of  the  mind.  Practically,  the  general 
is  only  produced  by  producing  all  the  specials  which  compose 
it.  If  the  agents  or  instruments  by  which  a  general  superin- 
tendence is  exercised,  be  contingent  and  fallible,  the  providence 
must  be  such  also.  God's  providence  is  efficient  and  almighty : 
it  must  then  be  special,  or  all  its  instruments  Gods.  4th.  God's 
providence  evolves  all  events  by  using  second  causes  according 
to  their  natures.  But  all  events  are  interconnected,  nearly  or 
remotely,  as  causes  and  effects.  And  the  most  minute  events 
■often  bear  the  connection  with  the  grandest;  e.  g.,  the  burning 
of  a  city  from  a  vagrant  spark  ;  the  change  of  King  Ahab's 
dynasty  by  an  errant  arrow.  Hence,  according  to  this  mode  of 
providence,  which  we  see  God  usually  employs,  unless  His  care 
extended  to  every  event  specially,  it  could  not  effectuate  any, 
certainly.  To  exercise  a  general  providence  without  a  special, 
is  as  though  a  man  should  form  a  chain  without  forming  its 
links. 

The  definition  of  Providence,  which  we  adopted  from  the 
Catechism,  divides  it  into  two  works — sustentation  and  govern- 
ment. 


278  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

According  to  the  Augustinian  scholastics,  the    Cartesians, 
and  many  of  the  stricter  Calvinistic  Reform- 
Scholastic    concep-  ^j  j     sustentation  of  creatures  in  being  is 

bon  of  Sustentation.  „'  ,   ,  ,  .  -_  ° 

effected  by  a  perpetual,  active  eiilux  or  con- 
cursus  of  divine  power  at  every  successive  instant,  identical 
with  that  act  of  will  and  power  by  which  they  were  brought 
out  of  nihil  into  esse ;  and  they  conceive  that  on  the  cessation 
of  this  act  of  God,  for  one  instant,  towards  any  creature  what- 
soever, it  would  return  incontinently  to  non-existence.  So  that 
it  is  no  figure  of  speech  with  them  to  say,  "  Sustentation  is  a 
pe  rpetual  re-creation."  Their  arguments  are,  that  God  alone  is 
self-existent;  hence  those  things  which  have  a  dependent  exist- 
ence cannot  have  the  ground  of  the  continuance  of  their  exist- 
ence in  themselves.  That  all  creatures  exist  in  successive  time  : 
but  the  instants  of  successive  time  have  no  substantive  tie  be- 
tween them  by  which  one  produces  the  next ;  but  they  only 
follow  each  other,  whence  it  results  that  successive  existence 
is  momentarily  returning  to  7iihil,  and  is  only  kept  out  of  it  by 
a  perpetual  re-creation.  And  3d  :  They  quote  Scriptures,  as 
Neh.  ix  :  6;  Job.  x  :  12  ;  Ps.  civ  :  27-30;  Acts  xvii  :  28  ;  Heb. 
1:3;  Col.  i  :  17  ;  Isa.  x  :  15. 

This  speculation  has  always  seemed  to  me  without  basis,. 
and  its  demonstration,  to  say  the  least,  im- 
possible for  the  human  understanding.  But 
let  me  distinctly  premise,  that  both  the  existence  and  essence, 
or  the  being  and  properties  of  every  created  thing,  originated 
out  of  •  nothing,  in  the  mere  will  and  power  of  God  ;  that  they 
are  absolutely  subject,  at  every  instant  of  their  successive  ex- 
istence, to  His  sovereign  power  ;  that  their  action  is  all  regulated 
by  His  special  providence,  and  that  He  could  reduce  them  to 
nothing  as  easily  as  He  created  them.  Yet,  when  I  am  re- 
quired to  believe  that  their  sustentation  is  a  literal,  continuous 
re-production  by  God's  special  act  out  of  nihil,  I  cannot  but 
remember  that,  after  all,  the  human  mind  has  no  cognition  of 
substance  itself,  except  as  the  unknown  substr-atum  of  proper- 
ties, and  no  insight  into  the  manner  in  which  it  subsists.  Hence 
we  are  not  qualified  to  judge,  whether  its  subsistence  is  main- 
tained in  this  way.     The  arguments  seem  to  me  invalid. 

If  man's  reason  has  any  necessary  ontological  judgment 
whatever,  it  is  this  :  That  substance  involves  reality,  continuity 
of  existence,  and  permanency.  Such  is,  in  short,  substantially 
the  description  which  the  best  mental  science  now  gives  of  that 
thing,  so  essential  to  our  perception.  When  we  deny  self- 
existence  to  creatures,  we  deny  that  the  cause  which  originates 
their  existence  can  be  in  them ;  but  this  is  far  from  proving  that 
God,  in  originating  their  existence,  may  not  have  conferred  it  as 
a  permanent  gift,  continuing  itself  so  long  as  He  permits  it.  e. 
g..  Motion  is  never  assumed  by  matter  of  itself;  but  when  im- 
pressed  from  without,  it  is  never  self-arrested.     To    say  that 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  2/9 

finite  creatures  exist  in  successive  time,  or  have  their  existence 
measured  by  it,  is  wholly  another  thing  from  showing  that  this 
succession  constitutes  their  existence.  What  is  time,  but  an 
abstract  idea  of  our  minds,  which  we  project  upon  the  finite 
existence  which  we  think  of  or  observe  ?  Let  any  man  analyse 
his  own  conception,  and  he  will  find  that  the  existence  is  con- 
ceived of  as  possessing  a  true  continuity  ;  it  is  the  time  by 
which  his  mind  measures  it,  that  lacks  the  continuity.  Last. 
These  general  statements  of  Scripture  only  assert  the  practical 
and  entire  dependence  of  creatures ;  no  doubt  their  authors 
would  be  very  much  surprised  to  hear  them  interpreted  into 
these  metaphysical  subtilties. 

You  will  observe  that  the  class  of  ideas  which  leads  to  this 
Monads     not     de-    doctrine  of  a  perpetual  efflux  of  divine  power, 
pendent  in  same  way    in     recreation,    are    usually    borrowed    from 
as  organisms.  organized,  material  bodies.     Men  forget  that 

ths  existence  of  organisms  may  be,  and  probably  is,  dependent, 
in  a  very  different  sense,  from  that  of  simple  existence,  such  as 
a  material  ultimate  atom,  or  a  pure  spirit.  For  the  existence  of 
an  organized  body  is  nothing  but  the  continuance  of  its  organ- 
ization, i.  e.,  of  the  aggregation  of  its  parts  in  certain  modes. 
This,  in  turn,  is  the  effect  of  natural  causes  ;  but  these  causes 
operate  under  the  perpetual,  active  superintendence  of  God. 
So  that  it  is  literally  true,  the  existence  of  a  compounded  organ- 
ism, like  the  human  body,  is  the  result  of  God's  perpetual, 
providential  activity ;  and  the  mere  cessation  of  this  would  be 
the  end  of  the  organism.  But  the  same  fact  is  not  proved  of 
simple,  monadic  substances. 

But  what    are   natural   causes  and    laws?      This  question 

enters  intimately  into  our  views  of  provi- 
csZlT     '^     ^^^""'^    dence,  inasmuch   as  they  are  the  means  with 

which  providence  works.  The  much-abused 
phrase,  law  of  nature,  has  been  vaguely  used  in  various  senses. 
The  Duke  of  Argyle  says  he  finds  the  word  "  Law,"  used  in 
five  senses.  I.  For  an  observed  order  of  facts.  2.  The  un- 
known force  implied  therein.  3.  The  ascertained  limit  of  a 
force.  4.  Combinations  of  force  for  a  '  final  cause.'  5.  The 
order  of  thought  which  the  reason  supplies  for  explanation  of 
observed  effects,  as  in  Mechanics,  the  '  first  law  of  motion.' 
The  list  might  be  larger,  but  properly  it  means  that  it  is  the 
observed  regular  mode  or  rule,  according  to  which  a  given 
cause,  or  class  of  causes  operates  under  given  conditions. 
This  definition  of  itself  will  show  us  the  absurdity  of  offering  a 
law  of  nature  to  account  for  the  existence  of  anything.  For 
nature  is  but  an  abstraction,  and  the  law  is  but  the  regular  mode 
of  acting  of  a  cause  ;  so  that  instead  of  accounting  for,  it  needs 
to  be  accounted  for  itself  The  fact  that  a  phenomenon  is  pro- 
duced again  and  again  regularly,  does  not  account  for  its  pro- 
duction!      The   true    question    which  lies    at  the    root  of  the 


280  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

matter  is,  concerning  the  real  power  which  is  present  in  natural 
causes.  We  s^y  that  they  are  those  things  which,  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  have  power  to  produce  certain  effects.  What, 
then,  is  the  power  ?  It  is  answered  that  the  power  resides  in 
some  property  of  the  thing  we  call  cause,  when  that  property  is 
brought  into  certain  relations  with  the  properties  of  some  other 
thing.  But  still  the  question  recurs  :  Is  the  power,  the  activity, 
a  true  property  of  the  thing  which  acts  as  cause,  or  is  the 
power  truly  God's  force,  and  the  occurrence  of  the  relation 
between  the  properties  of  cause  and  effect,  merely  the  appointed 
occasion  of  its  exertion?  This  is  the  question.  Let  me  pre- 
mise, before  stating  the  answers  given,  that  the  question  should 
be  limited  to  the  laws  of  material  nature,  and  to  physical 
causes.  All  sound  philosophy  now  regards  intelligent  spirits  as 
themselves  proper  fountains  of  causation,  because  possessed  of 
a  true  spontaneity  and  self-determination,  not  indeed  emanci- 
pated from  God's  sovereign  control,  yet  real  and  intrinsically 
active,  as  permitted  and  regulated  by  Him. 

But,  as  to  physical  causes,  orthodox  divines  and  philoso- 
phers give  different  answers.  Say  the  one 
ur?foL't;'God."''  Class,  as  Dick,  matter  is  only  passive.  The 
coming  of  the  properties  of  the  cause  into  the 
suitable  relation  to  the  effect,  is  only  the  occasion  ;  the  true 
agency  is  but  God's  immediately.  All  physical  power  is  God 
directly  exerting  Himself  through  passive  matter;  and  the  law 
of  the  cause  is  but  the  regular  mode  which  He  proposes  to 
Himself  for  such  exertions  of  His  power.  Hence,  the  true  dif- 
ference between  natural  power  and  miraculous,  would  only  be, 
that  the  former  is  customary  under  certain  conditions,  the  latter, 
under  those  conditions,  unusual.  When  a  man  feels  his  weary 
limbs  drawn  towards  the  earth,  by  what  men  call  gravity,  it  is  in 
fact  as  really  God  drawing  them,  as  when,  against  gravity,  the 
body  of  Elijah  or  Christ  was  miraculously  borne  on  high.  And 
the  reason  they  assign  is  :  that  matter  is  negative  and  inert ; 
and  can  only  be  the  recipient  of  power  :  and  that  it  is  incapa- 
ble of  that  intelligence,  recollection,  and  volition,  implied  in 
obedience  to  a  regular  law. 

Others,  as  McCosh,  Hodge,  &c.,  would  say,  that  to  deny  all 
properties  of  action  to  material  things,  is  to 
DefJlfti'vl  °^  ^""^"^^  reduce  them  to  practical  nonentity ;  leaving 
God  the  only  agent  and  the  only  true  exist- 
ence, in  the  material  universe.  Their  view  is  that  God,  in  creat- 
ing and  organizing  material  bodies,  endued  them  with  certain 
properties.  These  properties  He  sustains  in  them  by  that  per- 
petual support  and  superintendence  He  exerts.  And  these 
properties  are  specific  powers  of  acting  or  being  acted  on,  when 
brought  into  suitable  relations  with  the  properties  of  other  bod- 
ies. Hence,  while  power  is  really  in  the  physical  cause,  it 
or-ginated  in,  and  is  sustained  by,  God's  power.     The  question 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  28 1 

then  arises:  If  this  be  so,  if  the  power  is  intrinsically  in  the 
physical  cause,  wherein  does  God  exert  any  special  providence 
in  each  case  of  causation  ?  Is  not  His  providential  control 
banished  from  the  domain  of  these  natural  laws,  and  limited  to 
His  act  of  creation,  which  endued  physical  causes  with  their 
power?  The  answer  which  McCosh  makes  to  this  question  is: 
that  nothing  is  a  cause  by  itself ;  nor  does  a  mere  capacity  for 
producing  a  given  effect  make  a  thing  a  cause  ;  unless  it  be 
placed  in  a  given  relation  with  a  suitable  property  of  some 
other  thing.  And  here,  says  he,  is  God's  special,  present  prov- 
idence ;  in  constituting  those  suitable  relations  for  inter-action, 
by  His  superintendence.  The  obvious  objection  to  this  answer 
seems  to  have  been  overlooked;  that  these  juxta-positions,  or 
relations,  are  themselves  always  brought  about  by  God  (except 
where  free  agents  are  employed)  by  natural  causes.  Hence, 
the  view  of  God's  providence  that  would  result,  would  be  noth- 
ing more  than  the  pre-established  harmony  of  Leibnitz,  from 
whom,  indeed,  his  views  seem  derived.  This  would,  indeed, 
give  the  highest  conception  of  the  wisdom,  power,  and  sove- 
reignty exercised  in  establishing  the  amazing  plan ;  but  it  would 
leave  God  no  actual  providential  functions  to  perform  in  time, 
except  the  doubtful  one  of  the  mere  sustentation  of  simple 
being.  For,  you  must  note  :  since  the  continued  aggregation 
of  the  parts  of  an  organism  results  from  the  operation  of 
natural  laws  between  its  elementary  parts.  His  concern  in  the 
sustentation  of  compounded  bodies  would  be  no  other  than 
in  the  working  of  natural  laws.  The  explanation  is  therefore 
•obviously  defective. 

Let  us    see    to   what  extent  the  defect  can  be   supplied. 

,  ,  „  The  problem  which  the  Rationalist  supposes 

How  amended  ?  i.      u      •         i       j    •     ^.i  •        t  t  /-*     j  »         rr     ,  • 

to  be  mvolved  is  this :  How  God  s  effective 

providence  can  intervene  consistently  with  the  uniformity  of 
natural  laws.  Now,  the  laws  of  nature  are  invariable,  only  in 
the  sense  defined  above.  When  a  given  law  is  the  expression 
of  the  mode  in  which  a  real,  natural  cause  acts ;  then  it  is 
invariable  in  this  sense,  that  granting  the  same  conditions  in 
every  respect,  the  same  power  will  produce  the  same  effect. 
But  it  must  be  noted,  that  in  nature,  effects  are  never  the  sole 
results  of  a  single  power.  Combination  of  natural  powers  is 
the  condition  of  all  effects.  Our  description  of  God's  provi- 
dence over  nature  must  be,  in  a  good  sense,  "  anthropopathic." 
How  then,  does  man's  personal  will  use  the  powers  of  nature  ?  • 
He  is  not  able,  and  does  not  aim,  to  change  the  invariability  of 
either  of  the  powers  which  he  borrows.  But,  knowing  the 
invariable  law  of  one  cause,  he  combines  with  this  some  other 
power,  or  powers,  which  are  also  used  in  strict  accordance  with 
their  laws,  so  as  to  control  the  conditions  under  which  they  to- 
gether act.  Thus,  he  modifies  the  effects,  without  infringing  at  all 
the  regularity  of   the  natural  laws.     And  this  is  rational  con- 


252  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

trivance  for  an  end.  Thus,  even  in  man's  hands,  while  the  law 
of  each  power  is  invariable,  by  combination  of  a  rational  prov- 
idence, the  uses  are  widely  flexible.  .Must  not  this  be  much 
more  possible  in  God's  hands  ?  Thus,  for  instance,  man  con- 
structs a  clock,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  time.  He  avails 
himself  of  one  law,  the  gravitation  of  a  mass  of  metal  sus- 
pended, which  is  absolutely  unchangeable.  He  combines  with 
this,  by  a  set  of  wheels,  and  an  "escapement,"  the  action  of 
another  law ;  the  regular  beat  of  a  pendulum  thirty-nine  inches 
long.  This  is  also  invariable.  But  by  this  combination,  the 
mechanic  has  made  a  clock,  which  he  can  cause  to  keep  siderial 
or  solar  time,  to  run  faster  or  slower.  It  is  not  by  interrupting 
the  regularity  of  two  forces,  but  by  virtue  of  that  regularity, 
that  he  is  enabled  to  produce  these  varied  effects.  By  a  rational 
providence,  these  invariable  forces  are  made  to  perform  a  new 
function. 

Now,  man's   agency   here   is   supra  material,  namely,  per- 
sonal, intelHgent  and  voluntary.     Is  then,  all 
Is  Providence,  then,    Qg^'g  working  in  special  providence  super- 
natural?    The  answer  is,  it  is  supta  physical 
being  personal ;  but  not  in  the  proper  sense  supernatural,  any 
more    than  man's    similar    agency.     For  that  which   Personal 
Will  effectuates  through  the  regular  laws  of  second  causes,  is 
properly  natural.     The  supernatural  is  that  which  God  effect- 
uates by  power  above  those  causes. 

It  may  be  objected,  that,  as  we  observe  the  clock  maker 
shaping  and  adjusting  the  parts  of  machinery, 
jection.  i^y.  ^^j^j(,j-^  j^g  combines  two  or  more  invaria- 

ble powers  for  a  varying  function,  so,  we  should  have  expe- 
rimental knowledge  of  God's  processes  in  His  providence. 
We  reply  :  Is  the  machinist's  result  any  the  less  natural,  because 
he  chose  to  work  only  in  secret  ?  The  answer  contained  in  this 
question  has  its  force  greatly  enhanced  by  remarking  that  the 
Agent  of  providence  is  an  invisible  Spirit.  It  is  also  certainly 
a  part  of  His  purpose  that  His  hand  shall  be  invisible,  in  His 
ordinary  working.  This  His  objects  require.  Hence,  we  are 
to  reconcile  our  minds  to  this  fact,  that  while  the  reality  of  a 
special  providence,  and  its  possibility,  are  rationally  demon- 
strable, man  is  not  to  find  its  method  explicable.  Here  faith 
must  perform  her  humble  office.  But  when  the  possibility  of 
its  execution  by  infinite  power  and  wisdom  are  shown,  all  is 
done  that  is  needed  to  silence  rationalism. 

The  speculations  of  the  Duke  of  Argyle  have  been  men- 
tioned above,  with  approbation.  This  imposes 
Is  a  miracle  the  re-       necessity  of  dissenting  from  his  opinion  as 
suit  of  an  inner  Law.  .J  -r^      ■   ■  ^  , 

to  the  miracle.  Desirmg,  apparently,  to  con- 
ciliate the  rationalistic  cavil,  that  the  "  invariability  of  the  laws 
of  nature,"  renders  a  miracle  absolutely  impossible  and  incredi- 
ble, he  advances  this  definition ;  Let  a  miracle  be   called   an 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  285 

effect  which,  while  above  and  beside  all  laws  of  nature  explored 
by  man,  will  yet  be  found  (in  the  light  of  heaven  perhaps,)  to 
be  but  an  expression  of  some  higher  and  more  recondite  law. 
From  this  view  I  wholly  dissent.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the 
prime  end  for  which  God  has  introduced  miracles,  to  be  attes- 
tations to  man  of  God's  messages.  For,  we  have  only  to  sup- 
pose human  physical  science  carried  to  higher  stages,  and  the 
events  which  were  miraculous  to  a  ruder  age,  would  become 
natural.  All  miracles  would  cease  to  be  arijizla  just  so  soon  as 
they  were  comprehended ;  but  it  is  the  glory  of  the  true  mira- 
cle, that  the  more  fully  it  is  comprehended,  the  more  certainly 
it  would  be  a  ar^iiziov.  On  this  plan  the  effects  of  the  electric 
telegraph,  to  us  merely  human,  would  have  been  veritable  mira- 
cles to  Peter  and  Paul,  and  would  now  be,  to  the  Hottentot 
christians.  This  definition  then,  virtually  destroys  the  chris- 
tian miracles.  We  must  hold  fast  to  the  old  doctrine ;  that  a 
miracle  is  a  phenomenal  effect  above  all  the  powers  of  nature  ; 
properly  the  result  of  supernatural  power:  i.  e.,  of  God's 
immediate  power  which  He  has  not  regularly  put  into  any  sec- 
ond causes,  lower  or  higher.  The  advocates  of  the  new  defini- 
tion may  retort,  that  in  denying  miracles  to  be  expressions  of 
some  higher,  recondite  law,  I  assign  them  a  lawless  character. 
Should  we  not,  they  ask,  claim  for  them,  as  for  all  God's  acts, 
a  lucid  method,  a  rational  order?  I  reply:  By  all  means,  yes. 
Miracles  are  not  anarchical  infractions  of  nature's  order.  But 
they  confound  the  law  of  the  divine  purpose,  which  is  but  the 
infinite  thought  regulating  God's  own  will  and  acts,  with  some 
recondite  natural  law.  Every  miracle  was  wrought  in  strict 
conformity  with  God's  decree.  But  this  is  in  God :  the  natural 
law  is  impressed  on  the  nature  of  second  causes. 

We  see,  then,  that  all  general  providence  is  special.  And 
the  special  is  as  truly  natural  as  the  general. 

The  natural  arose  out  of  the  supernatural,  and  in  that 
sense,  reposes  upon  it  at  all  times.  The  Divine  will  is  perpetu- 
ally present,  underlying  all  the  natural.  Else  God  is  shut  back 
to  the  beginning  of  the  universe,  and  has  no  present  action  nor 
administration  in  His  empire.  Reason :  Because,  if  you  allow 
Him  any  occasional,  or  special  present  interventions,  at  decisive 
crises,  or  as  to  cardinal  events,  those  interventions  are  found  to 
be,  as  events,  no  less  natural  than  all  other  events.  They  also 
come  through  natural  law. 

A    providence    is    proved :     (a.)    From-  God's    perfections. 
3.  Providence  proved,    ^^is  infinite  essence,  immensity,  omniscience, 
1st,  from  God's  perfec-  and  omnipotence  enable  Him  to  sustain  such 
tions.  functions    to    His    universe,    if  He    pleases. 

And  we  believe  it  is  His  will  to  do  so;  first,  because  His 
wisdom  would  not  have  permitted  Him  to  make  a  universe  with- 
out an  object;  and  when  made,  the  same  wisdom  will  undoubt- 
edly employ  due  means  to  attain  that  end.     Second.  His  good- 


284  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ness  would  not  permit  Him  to  desert  the  well  being  of  the 
various  orders  of  sentient  beings  He  has  created  and  endued 
with  capacities  for  suffering.  Third.  His  righteousness  ensures 
that  after  having  brought  moral  relations  into  existence  between 
Himself  and  His  moral  creatures,  by  the  very  act  of  creating 
them,  He  cannot  desert  and  neglect  those  relations. 

(b.)  Man's  moral  intuitions  impel  him  to  believe  that  God 
2d,  From  Man's  is  just,  good,  true  and  holy;  and  that  the 
Moral  Intuitions.  3d,  natural  connection  which  generally  prevails 
From  Nature's  Order.  -^  ^j^^  ^^^^^^  ^^  ^j^-^  ^-f^^  between  man's  exer- 
cise of  these  virtues,  and  well-being,  is  intentional  and  retribu- 
tive. If  so,  then  God's  providence  is  concerned  in  all  that  course 
of  nature.  So  we  argue  from  the  instinct  of  prayer,  (c.)  The 
intelligent  order  which  we  see  in  the  working  of  material  nature 
splendidly  displays  a  Providence.  A  multitude  of  elements  and 
bodies  are  here  seen  connected  by  most  multifarious  influences, 
and  yet  the  complex  machine  moves  on,  and  never  goes  wrong. 
There  is  a  guiding  hand  !  The  same  fact  is  revealed  by  the 
steadiness  of  all  the  laws  of  reproduction  in  nature,  especially 
in  the  vegetable  and  animal  world,  and  in  man's  and  animal's 
sensitive,  and  man's  emotional  and  intellectual  nature.  Like 
does  not  fail  to  beget  like.  Why  ?  It  is  strikingly  seen  in  the 
ratio  of  the  sexes  among  human  births,  and  the  diversity  of 
human  countenances.  And  the  revelation  of  wise  designs  made 
at  least  occasionally  in  human  history  (e.  g.,  in  the  formation  of 
Washington's  character,  prevalence  of  the  Greek  language  at 
the  Christian  era,)  shows  that  it  moves  on  under  the  constant 
superintendence  of  God. 

Man's  conscious  dependence  teaches  him  the  same  truth. 
He  has  no  control  over  a  single  one  of  the 
peSence?"' "'"'''  ^''  ^^ws  of  nature,  such  as  enables  him  to  educe 
anything  necessary  to  his  well-being  from 
them,  with  any  certainty.  If  there  is  no  controlling  mind  to 
govern  them  for  him,  he  is  the  child  of  a  mechanical  fate,  or  of 
capricious  chance. 

Scriptures  prove  a   Providence.     A  preliminary  doctrinal 

_    .  argument  may  be  found  in  God's  decree.     If 

4.  iTom  Scriptures.      •,  •   ,  .  ,    ,,  .  , 

its  existence   is  proved,  then  a  providence  is 

proved  :  for  the  one  is  complementary  to  the  other,  (a.)  By  its 
predictions,  promises,  and  threats,  many  of  which  have  been 
explicit  and  detailed,  and  long  afterwards  have  been  accurately 
accomplished,  e.  g.,  Ex.  xii :  46,  with  Jno.  xix  :  36  ;  Ps.  xxii : 
18,  with  Jno.  xix:  24;  i  Kings  xx :  13,  with  xx:  34,  35-38; 
Micah.  v:  2,  with  Matt,  ii  :  5  ;  Is.  xiv :  23  ;  Jer.  i :  23  to  end; 
Jer.  xlix:  17,  &c. ;  Ezek.  xxvi :  4,  5.  Without  a  control  that 
was  efficacious,  over  particular  events,  God  could  not  thus  posi- 
tively speak.     Ps.  xci. 

(b.)  The  duty  and  privilege  of  prayer,  as  exercised  by  in- 
spired saints,  and  enjoined  in  precepts,  implies  a  providence ; 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  285, 

for  else,  God  has   no   sure  way  to   answer.     No  Providence  is 
practical  atheism. 

(c.)  A  multitude  of  express  Scriptures  assert  God's  provi- 
dence to  be  universal,  e.  g..  Fs.  ciii :  17-19;  Dan.  iv:  34,  35  ; 
Ps.  xxii :  28,  29;  Job  xii :  10,  and  Chaps,  xxxviii-xli ;  Col.  i: 
17  ;  Heb.  i :  3  ;  Acts  xvii :  28. 

Efficacious  and  Sovereig)i. — Job  xxiii :  13  ,  Ps.  xxxiii  :  1 1  ; 
cxxxv:  6  ;   2d  Sam.  xvii :  14. 

TJie  evolution  of  His  eternal  purpose.  —  Ps.  civ :  24 ;  Is. 
xxviii :  29  ;  Acts  xv  :  18  :  Eph.  i :  1 1. 

Special  and  particular. — Matt,  x  :  xxix  ;  3 1  :  Luke  xii :  6, 
7  ;  Nehemiah,  ix  :  6  ;  Matt,  vi  :  26  ;  Ps.  xxxvi  :  6  ;  cxlv :  15,  16 ; 
Gen.  xxii:   13,  14;  Jonah  iv :  6,  7,  8. 

Over  the  material  zvorld. — Job,  Chaps,  xxxviii-xli ;  Ps. 
civ  :  14 ;  cxxxv  ;  5-7  :  cxlvii :  8-18  ;  cxlviii :  7,  8  ;  Acts  xiv  :  17  ; 
Matt,  vi :  30  ;  vi :  26. 

Over  acts  to  us  fortuitous,  i.  e.  those  of  which  the  natural 
causes  are  unassignable  by  us,  either  because  undiscovered,  as- 
yet,  or  so  subtile,  or  complex.  Gen.  xxiv  :  12,  13,  &c. ;  Exod. 
xxi :  12,  13;  Deut.  xix  :  4;  Ps.  Ixxv :  6,  7;  Job  v:6;  Prov. 
xvi:  33;  xxi:  31. 

Last :  over  the  good  and  bad  acts  of  free  agents.  Reason 
shows  this ;  for  otherwise  God  could  not  govern  any  of  the 
physical  events  into  which  human  volitions  enter  as  modifying" 
causes,  either  immediately  or  remotely.  Prophecy,  threats, 
promises,  and  the  duty  of  prayer  prove  it,  (see  on  Decrees,)  and 
Scripture  expressly  asserts  it.  Prov.  xvi  :  9  ;  xx :  24;  xxi :  i  ; 
Jer.  x:23;  Ps.  xxxiii :  14,  15;  Gen.  xlviii :  8,  &c. ;  Exod.  xii : 
36  ;  Ps.  XXV  :  9-15,;  Phil,  ii :  13  ;  Acts  ii :  23  ;  2  Sam.  xvi :  10  ; 
xxiv:  I  ;  Ixxvi :  10;  Rom.  xi:  36;  Acts  iv  :  28;  Rom.  ix  :  18,* 
2  Sam.  xii :  1 1  ;    i  Kings  xxii :  23  ;  Ps.  cv  :  25. 

The    objections    against   the  Bible   doctrines    may   all   be 

reduced  to  these  heads  : 
Objections. 

1.  Epicurean;  that  God  would  be  fatigued  from  so  many 
cares. 

2.  That  it  is  derogatory  to  His  dignity  to  be  concerned 
with  trivialities. 

3.  The  disorders  existing  in  material  nature,  and  in  the 
course  of  human  affairs,  would  be  inconsistent  with  His  benevo- 
lence and  righteousness. 

4.  The  doctrine  infringes  the  efficacy  of  second  causes,  and 
the  free-agency  of  intelligent  creatures. 

5.  Last :  It  makes  God  the  author  of  sin. 

For  answers,  see  discussions  above  and  below  :  and  Dick. 
Lect.  43. 

5.  In  proceeding  to  speak  of  the  control  of  Providence 
over  the  acts  of  intelligent  free  agents,  we  must  bear  in  mind 
the  essential  difference  between  them  and  physical  bodies.     A 


286  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

body  is  not  intrinsically  a  cause.  Causation  only  tak^s  place 
when  a  certain  relation  between  given  properties  of  two  bodies, 
is  established  by  God's  providence.  (See  §  i.)  But  a  soul  is  a 
fountain  of  spontaneity ;  it  is  capable  of  will,  in  itself,  and  is 
self-determined  to  will,  by  its  own  prevalent  dispositions.  Soul 
is  a  cause. 

Now,  the  Bible  attributes  all  the  spiritually  good  acts  of 
man  to  God.  Rom.  vii :  i8  ;  Phil,  ij  :  13  ;  iv: 
ma^fspiritairacL'"  ^31  2  Cor.  xii :  9,  lo ;  Epli.  ii:  10;  Gal.  v: 
22-25.  God's  concern  in  such  acts  may  be 
explained  as  composed  of  three  elements,  (a.)  He  perpetually 
protects  and  preserves  the  human  person  with  the  capacities 
which  He  gave  to  it  naturally,  (b.)  He  graciously  renews  the 
dispositions  by  His  immediate,  almighty  will,  so  as  to  incline 
them,  and  keep  them  inclined  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  the  spirit- 
ually good,  (c.)  He  providentially  disposes  the  objects  and 
truths  before  the  soul  thus  renewed,  so  that  they  become  the 
occasional  causes  of  holy  volitions  freely  put  forth  by  the  sancti- 
fied will.  Thus  God  is,  in  an  efficient  sense,  the  intentional 
author  of  the  holy  acts,  and  of  the  holiness  of  the  acts,  of  His 
saints. 

But,  the  question  of  His   concern   in  the  evil  acts  of  free 
God's  agency  in  Man's  agents    (and    the    naturally    indifferent,)    is 
sins.     Is  there  a  con-  more  difficult.     The  Dominican  Scholastics, 
^^^^^^-  or  Thomists,  followed   by  some   Calvinistic 

Reformers,  felt  themselves  constrained,  in  order  to  uphold  the 
efficiency  and  certainty  of  God's  control  over  the  evil  acts  of 
His  creatures,  to  teach  their  doctrine  of  the  physical  concursus 
of  God  in  all  such  acts,  (as  well  as  in  all  good  acts,  and  physical 
causes).  This  is  not  merely  God's  sustentation  of  the  being 
and  capacities  of  creatures  ;  not  merely  a  moral  influence  by 
truths  or  motives  providentially  set  before  them ;  not  merely  an 
infusion  of  a  general  power  of  acting  to  which  the  creature 
gives  the  specific  direction,  by  his  choice  alone,  in  each  indi- 
vidual act ;  but  in  addition  to  all  this,  a  direct,  immediate  physi- 
cal energizing  of  the  active  power  of  the  creature,  disposing  and 
predetermining  it  efficaciously  to  the  specific  act,  and  also 
enabling  it  thereto,  and  so  passing  over  with  the  agency  of  the 
creature,  into  the  action.  Thus,  it  is  an  immediate,  physical, 
predisposing,  specific  and  concurrent  influence  to  act.  Their 
various  arguments  may  be  summed  up  in  these  three  :  that  the 
Scripture,  e.  g.,  Gen.  xlv:  7;  Is.  x:  15,  &c. ;  Acts  xvii :  28; 
Phil,  ii :  13  ;  Col.  i :  13,  demand  the  concursus  of  God  to  satisfy 
their  full  meaning :  That  as  man's  esse  is  dependent  on  the  per- 
petual, recreative  efflux  of  God's  power,  so  his  acting  must  per- 
petually depend  on  God's  concursus,  because  the  creature  must 
act  according  to  his  being.  '  Under  this  head,  for  instance, 
Witsius  may  be  seen,  following  Aquinas,  arguing  thus  :  Nothing 
but  a  first  cause  can  act  without  the  aid  and  influence  of  a  prior 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  28/ 

cause.  Hence,  if  the  human  will  were  able  to  produce  any 
action  of  which  God  was  not  the  efficient,  the  creature's  will 
would  hold  the  state  of  a  First  Cause.  Again :  All  action  pro- 
ceeds from  powers :  but  the  creature's  powers  emanate  from  his 
essence.  Hence  if  the  essence  is  derived,  the  action  must  also 
be  derived.  They  argue,  in  the  third  place,  that  without  the 
conairsiis  they  describe,  God's  providence  over  human  acts 
could  not  be  efficient  and  sovereign,  as  the  Scripture  teaches, 
and  as  we  must  infer  from  the  doctrine  of  the  decree,  and 
from  the  certain  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 

Turrettin  obviously  implies,  in  his  argument,  that  the 
rational  creature's  will,  like  a  second  cause  in  matter,  is  indeter- 
terminate  to  any  specific  effect.  For  he  argues  that  a  cause, 
thus  indeterminate  or  indifferent  must  receive  its  determination 
to  a  specific  effect,  from  some  cause  out  of,  and  above  itself, 
which  must  be  active,  and  determinating  to  the  specific  effect. 
(Qu.  5,  §  8,  &c.) 

Now,  on  this  I  remark,  see  here  the  great  importance  of 
the  distinction  I  made  (in  last  lecture,  and  on  the  difference  of 
permissive  and  efficacious  decrees)  between  material  and 
rational  second  causes. 

Again  :    Consider  if  Turrettin  does  not  here  surrender  a 

vital  point  of  his  own  doctrine  concerning  the  will.     That  point 

is,  that  the  rational  will  is  not   in  eqnilibro;  that  volitions  are 

not    contingent    phenomena,   but    regular   effects.      Effects   of 

what?     Sound   metaphysics  says,  of   subjective  motive.     The 

soul  (not  the  faculty  of  choice  itself,)  is  self-determining  —  i.  e., 

spontaneous.     But  this  according  to  a  law,  its  subjective  law. 

Now,  to  this  I  reply  farther,  (a)    The  doctrine  that  God's 

sustentation  is  by  a  perpetual  active  efflux 

It  IS  not  revealed  by    ^^  creative  power,  we  found  to  be  unproved 

consciousness.  .   .      ^    ,  .   ,  ,.,        ,       ,.  .i 

as  to  spirits,  which  unlike  bodies,  possess  the 

properties  of  true  being,  absolute  unity  and  simplicity.  That 
doctrine  is  only  true,  in  any  sense,  of  organized  bodies ;  which 
are  not  proper  beings,  but  rather  organized  collections  of  a 
multitude  of  separate  beings,  or  atoms.  My  consciousness 
tells  me  that  I  have  a  power  of  acting  (according  to  the  laws 
of  my  nature)  dependent  indeed,  and  controlled  always  by 
God,  yet  which  is  personally  my  own.  It  originates  in  the  spring 
of  my  own  spontaneity.  As  to  the  relation  between  personal 
power  in  us,  and  the  power  of  the  first  cause,  we  know  noth- 
ing ;  for  neither  He,  nor  consciousness,  tells  us  anything. 

(b)  Surely  the   meaning  of  all  such   Scriptures   as   those 

referred  to,  is  sufficiently  satisfied,  as  well  as 
Not  required  by  God's  ^j^^  demands  of  God's  attributes  and  govern- 
Sovereignty.  ,  .  ,  ,  ■    ,  t^-     . 

ment,  by  securing  these   two  points,     rirst, 

God  is  not  the  author  of  sin ;  Second,  His  control  over  all  the 
acts  of  all  His  creatures  is  certain,  sovereign  and  efficacious ; 
and  such  as  to  have  been  determined  from  eternity.     If  a  way 


255  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

can  be  shown,  in  which  God  thus  controls  these  sinful  acts^ 
without  this  physical  conciirsiis,  the  force  of  the  other  argu- 
ments for  it  is  all  removed.*  May  not  this  mode  be  found  in 
this  direction?     Thus: 

God's  eternal  purpose  as  to  evil  acts  of  free  agents  is  more 
How,  then,  does  God    than  barely  permissive;  His  prescience  of  it 
Secure    Men's   Free    is  more  than  a  scientia  media  of  what  is,  to 
■^^'^'  Him,  contingent.     It   is   a   determinate   pur- 

pose effectuated  in  providence  by  means  efficient,  and  to  Him, 
certain   in   their  influence    on    free    agents.     What    are    those 
means?     Volitions   are  caused.     The  efficient  causes  of  voli- 
tions are  the  soul's  own  dispositions ;  the  occasional  causes  are 
the  objects  providentially  presented  to  those  dispositions.     Even 
we  may,  in  many  cases,  so  know  dispositions  as  efficientfy  to 
procure,  and  certainly  to  predict,  given  volitions,  through  the 
presentation   of   objective  causes   thereof     An  infinite   under- 
standing may  so  completely  know  all  dispositions  and  all  their 
complex  workings,  as  to  foretell  and  produce  volitions  thus  in 
every  case,  as  we  are  able  to  do  in  many  cases.     Add  to  this, 
omnipotent,  providential  power,  which  is  able  to  surround  any 
soul  with  circumstances  so  adapted  to  his  known  dispositions, 
as  infallibly  to  prove   the  occasions  of   given  desired  volitions. 
And  the  presentation  of  the  objective  inducement  to  do  wrong; 
is  also  wrought,  after  the  manner  of  God's  permissive  decree, 
by  the    free   actions  of   other    sinners    permissively    ordained. 
Thus :  The  offer  of   the   Ishmaelitish   merchants  (Gen.  xxxvii : 
25,)  to  buy  Joseph,  was  the  sufficient  inducement  to  his  breth- 
ren's spite  and  cupidity.     It  was  these  subjective  emotions  in 
them,  w^hich  constituted  the  efficient  motive  of   the   crime  of 
selling  their  brother.     God  did  not  himself  present  that  induce- 
ment by  His  own  immediate  act  or  influence ;  but  He  permis- 
sively ordained  its  presentation  by  the  merchants.     Here  you 
have  means  enough  to  enable  God  to  purpose  and  efficiently 
produce  a  given  act  of  a  free  agent,  without  any  other  special 
conaa-sus,   in   the   act   itself,  than   the    providential    power   by 
which  He  sustains  the  being  and  capacities  of  that  soul,  what- 
ever that  power  is.     This,  then,  is  my  picture  of  the  providen- 
tial evolution  of  God's  purpose  as  to  sinful  acts ;  so  to  arrange 
and  group  events  and  objects  around  free  agents  by  His  mani- 
fold wisdom  and  power,  as  to  place  each  soul,  at  every  step,  in 
the  presence  of  those  circumstances,  which.  He  knows,  will  be 
a  sufficient  objective  inducement  to  it  to  do,  of  its  own  native, 
free  activity,  just  the  thing  called  for  by  God's  plan.     Thus  the 
act  is  man's  alone,  though  its  occurrence  is  efficaciously  secured 
by  God.     And  the  sin  is  man's  only.     God's  concern   in   it  is 
holy,    first,  because  all    His    personal  agency  in   arranging  to 


^  If  a  soul  is  not  spontaneous  cause,  it  is  not  responsible.     If  its  spontaneity  is 
above  providence,  it  is  a  God  ! 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  289 

secure  its  occurrence  was  holy;  and  second,  His  ends  or  pur- 
poses are  holy.  God  does  not  will  the  sin  of  the  act,  for  the 
sake  of  its  sinfulness ;  but  only  wills  the  result  to  which  the  act 
is  a  means,  and  that  result  is  always  worthy  of  His  holiness. 
E.  g. :  A  righteous  king,  besieged  by  wicked  rebels,  may 
arrange  a  sally,  with  a  view  to  their  righteous  defeat,  and  the 
glorious  deliverance  of  the  good  citizens,  in  which  he  knows 
the  rebels  will  slay  some  of  his  soldiers.  This  slaying  is  sin ; 
the  good  king  determines  efficaciously  to  permit  it ;  not  for  the 
sake  of  the  slaying,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  righteous  triumph 
of  which  it  is  part  means.  The  death  of  these  good  soldiers  is 
the  sin  of  the  rebels ;  the  righteousness  of  the  end  in  view,  is 
the  king's. 

It  may  be  said,  that  this  scheme  represents  God,  after  all, 

as  governing  free  agents  by  a  sort  of  sciciitia 

Is  God;s  mtelligence    ;;^^^/^_     I  reply:    Let  US  not  be  scared  by 

herein  ocienda  Aleaia?  ^  ■'  .  ^ 

unpopular  names.  It  is  a  knowledge  con- 
ditioned on  His  own  almighty  purpose,  and  His  own  infallible 
knowledge  of  the  dispositions  of  creatures ;  and  it  is,  in  this 
sense,  relative.  But  this  is  not  a  dangerous  sense.  For  only 
lay  down  the  true  doctrine,  that  volitions  are  efficiently  deter- 
mined by  dispositions,  and  there  is,  to  God,  no  shadow  of  con- 
tingency remaining  about  such  foreknowledge.  (That  was  the 
ugly  trait.)  As  I  showed  you,  when  explaining  this  scientia 
media,  in  the  hands  of  him  who  holds  the  contingency  of  the 
will,  it  is  illogical ;  in  the  hands  of  the  Calvinist,  it  becomes 
consistent. 

(c)  This  doctrine  of  physical  concursus  neglects  the  proper 

distinction  between  the  power  of  causation 
Such  concursus  would    -^^    physical    bodies  and    in   free   agents.     It 

also  commits  a  fatal  error  in  making  God's 
agency  in  bad  acts,  about  as  immediate  and  efficacious 
as  in  good  acts ;  and  indeed  very  much  the  same.  It  repre- 
sents the  soul,  like  a  physical  cause,  as  undetermined  to  action 
or  non-action,  till  God's  prcBciirsjis  decides  it  to  act.  Of  course, 
then,  an  unholy  will  might  be  equally  decided  by  it  to  a  holy  or 
an  unholy  act !  Thus  hyper-Calvinism  actually  betrays  its  own 
cause  to  the  opposite  party,  who  teach  the  cqidlibriiivi  of  the 
will;  and  contradicts  Scripture,  which  always  claims  more 
credit  and  agency  for  God  (and  an  essentially  different  agency) 
in  the  good  acts,  than  in  the  evil  acts,  of  the  creature. 

(d)  This  doctrine  leads  us  too  near  to  the  awful  verge  of 

Pantheism.     See  how  readily  it  can  be  made 
Its  tendency  Panthe-    ^^  \^vl(\  towards  one   of  the  very  types  of 
Ideahstic  Pantheism,  lately  prevalent  in  parts 
of  Europe.     If  God's  efficient  prcBciirsiis  is  essential  to  all  the 
creature's  acts,  then,  of  course,  it  is  essential  to  his  acts  of  per- 
ception.    But  now,  if  it  is  not  the  objective  world,  which  is  the 
efficient   cause  of    perceptions   in   our  minds,  but  God :    why 
19* 


290  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

should  we  predicate  any  objective  world  at  all?  The  real  evi- 
dence of  its  existence  is  lacking,  and  if  this  doctrine  is  true, 
the  supposition  of  an  objective  world  should  be  excluded  by 
the  "  law  of  parcimony."  And  since  the  mind  is  not,  accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine,  the  efficient  of  its  own  acts,  why  should 
we  predicate  its  personality  either?  But,  more  simply  stated, 
the  road  towards  Pantheism  is  this :  If  there  is  such  a  universal 
pr<2C7irs2is,  God  is  the  only  true  agent  in  the  universe.  Turret- 
tin  himself  admits,  that  according  to  this  scheme,  God's  conciir- 
sjis  is  the  efficient  cause  of  every  act,  and  the  creature's  volition 
only  the  formal  cause.  How  easy  the  step  from  this  to  making 
the  creature's  being  a  mere  efflux  of  God's  being?  Do  not 
these  writers  claim  that  the  mode  of  the  action  must  agree  to 
that  of  the  esse?  Thus  we  have  another  illustration  of  the 
justice  of  the  charge  that  Scholastic  Realism  prepared  the  way 
for  modern  Pantheism. 

(e)  Last.     Like    all  Pantheism,  it  comes  too  near  making 

God  the  author  of  sin ;  for  it  makes  God  an 
of  sin!^^^Evasion.*^^"^^    immediate,  intentional  efficient  of  acts  which 

are  sinful.  The  scholastics  endeavour  to 
evade  this,  by  distinguishing  between  the  physical  entity  of  the 
act  and  its  moral  relation.  God,  say  they,  is  an  efficient  of  the 
entity,  not  of  the  moral  evil  which  qualifies  it.  Thus  :  when  a 
musician  strikes  an  untuned  harp,  the  sound  is  from  him,  the 
discord  of  the  sound  is  from  the  disorder  of  the  strings.  When 
a  partial  paralytic  essays  to  move  his  limbs,  motion  is  from  his 
volition;  the  halting  or  jerking  is  from  the  disease.  The  illus- 
trations are  false  ;  for  the  musician's  intention  is  to  produce, 
not  only  sound,  but  harmonious  sound, —  the  paralytic's,  not 
only  motion,  but  correct  motion.  God's  intention  embraces 
notonly  the  physical  entity  of  the  act,  but  its  moral  quality.  It  is 
not  only  the  act  as  an  act,  but  the  act  as  sinful,  which  He 
intends  to  permit.  For  how  often  are  the  holy  ends  He  has  in 
view  connected  with  the  sinfulness  of  the  act?  That  the  dis- 
tinction is  incorrect  may  be  practically  evinced  thus  :  The  same 
distinction  would  serve  as  well  to  justify  the  Jesuit  doctrine  of 
intention.  Search  and  see.  I  see  no  way  to  escape  the  horrid 
consequence  of  making  God  the  author  of  sin,  except  by  mak- 
ing sinful  acts  immediately  the  acts  of  the  sinner  alone ;  and 
this  is  certainly  the  testimony  of  his  own  consciousness.  He 
feels  that  he  is  wholly  self-moved  thereto ;  and  hence  his  sense 
of  guilt  therefor. 

The  inadequacy  of  this  evasion  appears  in  that   Turrettin 
The  evasion false,be-    (Qi-i-   5,  §    I/,)    admits    himself    to    be    con- 
cause  it  gives  no  act    strained  by  it  to  hold  the  deplorable  dogma, 
moral  quality  A-r  5..       ^j^.^^.  ^^  ^^^^^y  ^^^  j^^g  intrinsic  moral  quality 

per  se.  He  even  quibbles,  that  the  hatred  of  God  felt  by  a 
sinner  is  not  evil  by  its  intrinsic  nature  as  a  simple  act  of  will; 
but  only  by  its  adjuncts.    Ans.  The  act,  apart  from  its  adjuncts, 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  29 1 

is  either  no  act  at  all,  or  a  different  act  intrinsically.  There  is 
false  analysis  here.  Turrettin  (again)  is  misled  by  instances 
such  as  these  admitted  ones.  All  killing  is  not  murder.  All 
smiting  is  not  malice.  All  taking  is  not  theft,  &c.,  &c.  The 
sophism  is,  that  these  are  outward  acts :  effectuated  through 
bodily  members.  As  to  the  mere  physical  phenomenon  of 
volitions  moving  bodily  members,  we  admitted,  and  argued  that, 
abstracted  from  its  psychical  antecedents  and  adjuncts,  it  has 
no  moral  quality.  Proof  is  easy.  But,  in  strictness  of  speech, 
the  physical  execution  of  the  volition  in  the  act  of  striking,  &c., 
is  not  the  act  of  soul  —  only  the  outward  result  thereof.  The 
act  of  soul  is  the  intent  of  will.  In  this,  the  right  or  wrong 
moral  relation  is  intrinsic.  Now,  would  not  Turrettin  say,  that 
the  concursus  he  teaches  incites  and  directs  the  act  of  soul,  and 
not  that  of  the  body  merely  ?  Certainly.  Thus  it  appears  that 
his  distinction  and  evasion  are  inadequate. 

Or  thus :  No  Calvinist  will  deny  that  the  morality  of  an 
act  is  determined  by  its  intention.  But  intention  is  action  of 
soul,  as  truly  as  volition.  And  if  a  physical  coiicursits  is  neces- 
sary to  all  action,  it  is  so  to  intention.  Thus  God's  action 
would  be  determinative  of  the  morality  of  the  act.  In  a  word, 
these  Calvinists  here  betray,  in  their  zeal  for  this  prcBcursus, 
that  doctrine  of  the  essential  originality  of  the  moral  distinction, 
which  they  had  already  established ;  (see  Lee.  xiv,  §  4,  and 
Loc.  iii,  Qu.  i8th,)  and  which  we  shall  find  essential  in  defend- 
ing against  Socinians,  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  for  guilt. 


LECTURE  XXVI. 

MAN'S    ESTATE    OF    HOLINESS,    AND   THE    COVE- 
NANT OF  WORKS. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Was  man's  person  constituted  of  matter  and  spirit?  Wherein  consisted  the 
"  image  of  God"  in  which  man  was  created?  Wherein  consisted  his  original  right- 
eousness ?     See 

Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  lo.  Dick,  Lect.  40.  Witsius,  CEcon  Feed,  bk.  i,  ch. 
2.     Watson's  Theo.  Inst.,  ch.  18.     Knapp,  Chr.  Theol.,  ^  51-53. 

2.  Was  Adam's  original  lighteousness  con-created,  or  acquired  by  acting?  State 
the  answers  of  Calvinists  and  Pelagians,  and  establish  the  true  one. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  9,  11;  Loc.  viii,  Qu.  i,  2;  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  2.  Hill,  bk. 
iv,  ch.  I,  \  2.  Dick,  Lect.  40.  Watson,  ch.  18,  g  i  (2).  Knapp,  \  54. 
Thornwell,  Lect.  14,  pp.  394-end. 

3.  What  was  Adam's  natural  relation  to  God's  law? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  12.  Thornwell,  Lect.  11  and  12.  Witsius,  bk.  i,  ch. 
5,   \  22,   and  bk.  i,   ch.  4,  \  1-5.     Dick,  Lect.  44.     Watson,  ch.  18,  \  i. 

4.  Did  God  place  man  under  a  Covenant  of  Works?  And  did  Adam  therein 
represent  his  posterity  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  viii,  Qu.  3,  6.  Witsius,  bk.  i,  ch.  2,  \  14,  &c.,  ch.  8,  \  31,  &c. 
Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  i,  \  i,  2.  Dick,  Lect.  44,  45.  Watson,  ch.  18,  \  3.  Thorn- 
well, Lect.  12,  p.  284,  &c. 

5.  Wlaat  was  the  condition,  and  what  the  seal  of  that  Covenant? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  viii,  Qu.  4,  5,  7.  Witsius,  bk.  i,  ch.  3.  Dick  and  Hill  as 
above. 

THE  first  three  chapters  of  Genesis  present  a  desideratum 
wholly  unsupplied  by  any  human  writing,  in  a  simple,  natu- 
ral, and  yet  authentic  account  of  man's 
One  p5r''  °"^''  ^™"'  origin.  The  statement  that  his  body  was  cre- 
ated out  of  pre-existent  mattter,  and  his  soul 
communicated  to  that  body  by  God,  solves  a  thousand  inquiries, 
which  mythology  and  philosophy  are  alike  incompetent  to 
meet.  And  from  this  first  father,  together  with  the  helpmeet 
formed  for  him,  of  the  opposite  sex,  from  his  side,  have  pro- 
ceeded the  whole  human  race,  by  successive  generation.  The 
unity  of  race  in  the  human  family  has  been  much  mooted  by 
half-scholars  in  natural  science  of  our  day,  and  triumphantly 
defended.  I  must  remit  you  wholly  for  the  discussion  to  the 
books  written  by  Christian  scholars  on  that  subject,  of  which  I 
may  mention,  as  accessible  and  popular,  Cabell,  the  University 
Lectures,  and  the  work  of  Dr.  Bachman,  of  Charleston.  I 
would  merely  point  out,  in  passing,  the  theological  importance 
of  this  natural  fact.  If  there  are  men  on  earth  not  descended 
from  Adam's  race,  then  their  federal  connection  with  him  is 
broken.  But  more,  their  inheritance  in  the  protevangeliuin,  that 
the  "seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head,"  is  also 
interrupted.  The  warrant  of  the  Church  to  carry  the  Gospel 
to  that  people  is  lacking ;  and  indeed  all  the  relations  of  man 
to  man  are  interrupted  as  to  them.  Lastly,  the  integrity  of  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  is  fatally  affected  ;  for  the  unity  of 
292 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY, 


293 


the  race  is  implied  in  all  its  system,  in  the  whole  account  of 
God's  dealings  with  it,  in  all  its  histories,  and  asserted  in 
express  terms.  Acts  xvii :  26.  See  Breckinridge's  Theol.,  vol. 
I,  ch.  3,  i.  For  additional  Scriptures,  Gen.  iii  :  20  ;  vii  :  23  ;  ix  : 
I,  19  ;  X  :  32.  Unity  of  race  is  necessary  to  relation  to  the 
Redeemer. 

But  a  yet  more  precious  part  of  this  passage  of  Scripture 
is  the  explanation  it  gives  of  the  state  of 
Spirit."'  °  ^  ^^  universal  sin,  self-condemnation,  and  vanity, 
in  which  we  now  find  man  ;  which  is  so  hard 
to  reconcile  with  God's,  attributes.  The  simple,  but  far  reach- 
ing solution  is,  that  man  is  not  in  the  state  in  which  he  was 
made  by  his  Creator.  The  record  tells  us  that  God  "  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  Here,  in 
the  simple  language  of  a  primeval  people,  the  two-fold  nature 
of  man,  as  matter  and  spirit,  is  asserted.     As  the  popular  terms 

of  every  people  have  selected  breath,  n^"n,  Tivebim,  sphitus,  to 

signify  this  inscrutable  substance,  thinking  spirit,  the  narrative 
describes 'the  communication  of  the  soul  to  the  body  by  the  act 
of  breathing.  And,  it  may  be  added,  the  view  to  which  rea- 
son led  us,  as  to  the  spirituality  of  man's  thinking  part,  is  con- 
firmed by  all  Scripture.  Here,  Gen.  ii  :  7.  The  body  is  first 
formed  from  one  source,  and  then  the  spirit  is  communicated  to 
it  from  a  different  one.  God  is  thus  the  Father  of  our  spirits. 
Heb.  xii :  9.  At  death,  the  two  substances  separate,  and  meet 
different  fates.  Eccl.  xii  :  7  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  1-8  ;  Phil,  i  :  22,  23. 
The  body  and  soul  are  in  many  ways  distinguished  as  different 
substances,  and  capable  of  existing  separately.  Matt,  x  ;  28  ; 
Luke  viii :  55.  The  terms  body,  soul  and  spirit,  are  twice  used 
as  exhaustive  enumerations  of  the  whole  man.  i  Thess.  v  :  23  ; 
Heb.  iv  :  12. 

Next :  we  learn  that  man,  unlike  all  lower  creatures,  was 

,^   ,    ,     „    formed  in  the  " image  of  God "  —  "after  His 
Image  of  God  what  ?     ,.,  >>        -ri  1     -j         t.  •        u    • 

^  likeness.         ihe   general    idea  here   is  obvi- 

ously, that  there  is  a  resemblance  of  man  to  God.  It  is  not  in 
sameness  of  essence,  for  God's  is  incommunicable ;  nor  like- 
ness of  corporeal  shape,  for  of  this  God  has  none ;  being 
immense.  This  image  has  been  lost,  in  the  fall,  and  regained, 
in  redemption.  Hence,  it  could  not  have  consisted  in  anything 
absolutely  essential  to  man's  essence,  because  the  loss  of  such 
an  attribute  would  have  destroyed  man's  nature.  The  likeness 
which  was  lost  and  restored  must  consist,  then,  in  some  accidens. 
The  old  Pelagians  and  Socinians  represented  the  image  as 
grounded  in  man's  rationality,  and  consisting  especially  in  His 
dominion  over  the  animals  and  the  world.  The  Reformed 
divines  represent  it  as  grounded  upon  man's  rationality  and  im- 
mortality, which  make  him  an  humble   representation  of  God's 


294  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

spiritual  essence  ;  but  as  consisting  especially  in  the  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness,  in  which  Adam  was  created.  The 
dominion  bestowed  upon  man  is  the  appropriate  result  of  his 
moral  likeness  to  his  Maker.  Thus  Witsius  —  The  image  con- 
sisted antccedenter,  in  man's  spiritual  and  immortal  nature  •: 
formaliter,  in  His  holiness  ;  conseqiienter,  in  His  dominion. 
The  first  was  the  precious  tablet;  the  second  was  the  image 
drawn  on  it ;  the  third  was  the  ray  shining  from  it.  But  we 
substantiate  the  definition  of  God's  image ;  as  to  its  first  partic- 
ular, by  Gen.  ix  :  6,  where  we  learn  that  the  crime  of  murder 
owes  its  enormity  chiefly  to  this,  that  it  destroys  God's  image. 
See  also,  Jas.  iii :  9.  But  since  the  fall,  man  has  lost  his  origi- 
nal righteousness,  and  his  likeness  to  God  consists  only  in  his 
possession  of  an  intelligent  spiritual  nature.  Dominion  over  the 
earth  and  its  animals  was  plainly  conferred.  Gen.  i :  26,  27  ;  Ps.  viii, 
and  it  is  implied  that  this  feature  made  man,  in  an  humble 
sen  e,  a  representative  of  God  on  the  earth,  in  Gen.  i  :  26,  27, 
from  the  connection  in  which  the  two  things  are  mentioned,  and 
in  I  Cor.  xi  :  7,  from  the  idea  there  implied,  that  the  authority 
given  him  by  God  over  the  other  sex  makes  him  God's  represen- 
tative. But  the  likeness  consists  chiefly  in  man's  original  moral 
perfection,  the  intelligence  and  rectitude  of  his  conscience. 
This  is  argued  from  the  fact  that  the  first  man,  like  all  the  other 
works  of  creation,  was  "  very  good."  Gen.  i  :  31.  This  "  good- 
ness "  must,  in  fairness,  be  understood  thus,  that  each  created 
thing  had  in  perfection  those  properties  which  adapted  it  to  its 
designed  relations.  Man  is  an  intelligent  being,  and  was  cre- 
ated to  know,  enjoy  and  glorify  God  as  such;  hence  his  moral 
state  must  have  been  perfect.  See  also,  Eccl.  vii  :  29.  And 
that  this  was  the  most  important  feature  of  God's  likeness,  is 
evident ;  because  it  is  that  likeness  which  man  regains  by  the 
new  creation.  See  Rom.  xii  :  2  ;  Col.  iii  :  10 :  Eph.  iv  :  24. 
This  also,  is  the  likeness  which  saints  aspire  after,  which  they 
hope  to  attain  when  they  regain  Adam's  original  perfection. 
Ps.  xvii  :  15  ;    i  Jno.  iii  :  2. 

This  all-important  likeness  of  man  to  his  God  justifies  that 
trait  of  all    our   natural    theology,    which    is 

necessarily  anthropomorphic.  In  the  seventh 
lecture,  this  trait  is  admitted,  and  the  insufficiency  which  it 
causes  in  any  theology  merely  natural,  as  a  means  of  sanctifica- 
tion  and  redemption,  is  disclosed.  But  our  opponents  would 
use  this  concession  to  destroy  both  natural  theology  and  revealed. 
Our  rational  self-consciousness  is  the  medium  by  which  we  con- 
ceive God  and  His  attributes.  We  know  power  and  causation 
first  in  our  own  conscious  volitions :  and  thus  we  step  to  a  First 
Cause.  We  know  spirit,  as  contrasted  with  matter,  first,  as  the 
subject  of  the  functions  of  consciousness:  and  thus  we  know 
that    God,  the  cause    of  all    intelligence,    and    the   omniscient,. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  295 

must  also  be  spirit.  We  conceive  His  knowledge  and  wis- 
dom, as  revealed  in  His  works,  after  the  mode  of  our  thinking 
to  our  final  causes,  but  without  the  limitations  of  our  thoughts. 
Our  conscience  is  the  revelation  to  us  of  God's  rectitude.  It 
was  only  by  the  method  of  our  control  over  natural  powers, 
that  we  could  construe  God's  providence.  And  thus  came  all 
our  natural  knowledge  of  God. 

It  is  from  this  feature  that  worthlessness  has  been  charged 
upon  it  all.  But  this  is  simply  preposterous. 
^^But  not  therefore  un-  ^gt  it  be  considered  whether  it  is  not  the 
inevitable  condition  of  knowledge  to  man 
that  it  shall  be  anthropomorphic  ?  What  is  this,  but  to  say, 
that  man's  knowledge  must  be  human,  in  order  to  be  his  ? 
For  if  he  is  to  have  any  cognition,  it  must  be  according  to  the 
forms  of  his  intelligence.  This  unreasonable  cavil  is  evidently 
grounded  in  this  illusion ;  that  a  symmorphism  of  the  divine 
science  to  our  forms  of  thought  must  be  a  transformation  :  that 
the  ppopositions  of  this  science  must  be  so  changed,  in  order  to 
translate  them  into  our  modes  of  cognition,  as  to  be  invalid. 
Now,  if  we  knew  that  the  human  intelligence  was  wholly  hete- 
rogeneous from  the  divine,  there  would  be  some  ground  for 
this  suspicion.  But  suppose  it  should  turn  out  that  the  human 
intelligence  is,  in  its  lower  sphere,  homogeneous  with  the  divine, 
then  the  symmorphism  of  knowledge  implies  no  corruption  of 
its  truth.  Does  the  opponent  exclaim,  that  we  must  not  *  beg 
the  question,'  by  assuming  that  homogeneity?  We  reply;  Neither 
shall  he  beg  the  question  in  denying  it.  But  when  the  inspired 
witness,  the  Bible,  comes  to  us,  with  attestation,  (by  miracles, 
prophecies,  &c.,)  exactly  suited  to  the  forms  of  the  human  un- 
derstanding, and  assures  us  that  our  spirits  are  made  in  the 
likeness  of  God's,  all  fear  of  our  theology,  as  made  invalid  by 
anthropomorphism,  is  removed.  And  especially  when  we  are 
shown  the  Messiah,  as  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  and  hear 
Him  reason,  we  have  a  complete  verification.  It  would  appear 
that  this  simple,  primeval  narrative  was  so  framed,  as  to  give 
the  answer  to  a  subtile  modern  cavil,  and  to  satisfy  this  funda- 
mental difficulty.* 

If  we  attempt  to  define  the  original  righteousness  of  man's 

nature,  we  must  say  that,  first,  it  implies  the 

Adam's  Natural  right-  possession    of    those    capacities    of    under- 

eousness  denned.  t'  •  1      1  1  1 

standmg  and  conscience,  and  that  knowl- 
edge, which  were  necessary  for  the  correct  comprehension  of 
all  his  own  moral  relations.  This  equally  excludes  the  extrava- 
gant notion,  that  he  was  endued  by  nature  with  all  the  knowl- 
edge ever  acquired  by  all  his  descendants  ;  and  its  opposite, 
that  his  soul  commenced  its  existence  in  an  infantile  state. 
Second  ;  Man's  righteousness  consisted  in  the  perfectly  narmo- 

*  See  a  similar  view,  in  the  recently  published  Lectures  of  Dr.  ThomwelL     Vol. 
I  pp. 112-113. 


296  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

nious  concurrence  of  all  the  dispositions  of  his  soul,  and,  conse- 
quently, of  all  his  volitions  prompted  thereby,  with  the  decis- 
ions of  his  conscience,  which  in  its  turn  was  correctly  directed 
by  God's  holy  will.  His  righteousness,  was  then,  a  natural  and 
entire  conformity,  in  principle  and  volition,  w-ith  God's  law, 
Adam  was  doubtless  possessed  of  free  will,  (Confession,  ch,  iv, 
§  2  ;  ix,  §  2,)  in  the  sense  which,  we  saw,  was  alone  appropriate 
to  any  rational  free  agent ;  that  in  all  his  responsible,  moral  acts, 
his  soul  was  self-determined  in  its  volitions — i.  e.,  he  chose 
according  to  his  own  understanding  and  dispositions,  free  from 
co-action.  But  his  will  was  no  more  self-determining,  or  in 
eqiiilibric,  than  man's  will  now.  (We  saw  that  such  a  state  would 
be  neither  free,  rational,  nor  moral).  Just  as  man's  dispositions 
now  decisively  incline  his  will,  in  a  state  of  nature,  to  ungodli- 
ness, so  they  then  inclined  it  to  holiness.  This  inclination  was 
prevalent  and  complete  for  the  time,  yet  not  immutable,  as  the 
event  proved.  But  this  mutability  of  will  did  not  imply  any 
infirmity  of  moral  nature  peculiar  to  man,  as  comparei^  with 
angels.  The  fate  of  the  non-elect  angels  shows  that  it  is  the 
inevitable  result  of  man's  being  finite.  Impeccability  is  the 
property  of  none  but  the  Infinite,  and  those  to  whom  He  com- 
municates it  by  His  indwelling  wisdom  and  grace.  How  a 
creature  soul  could  be  prevalently  and  completely  holy  in  its 
dispositions,  and  yet  mutable,  is  a  most  abstruse  problem,  to 
which  we  will  return  in  due  place. 

Was  Adam's  righteousness,   in   his  estate  of  blessedness, 
native  or  acquired  ?     The  Calvinist  answers, 
2.  Adam's  righteous-    -^  ^^^  native  ;  it  was  conferred  upon  him  as 
ness  concreated.  .    •       1     7     »  •  r  1  ■  -n     1  1 

the  origmal  liabitus  01  his  will,  by  the  cre- 
ative act  which  made  him  an  intelligent  creature.  And  the 
exercise  of  holy  volitions  was  the  natural  effect  of  the  princi- 
ples w'hich  God  gave  him.  This  is  the  obvious  and  simple 
meaning  of  our  doctrine  ;  not  that  righteousness  was  so  an 
essential  attribute  of  man's  nature,  that  the  loss  of  it  would 
make  him  no  longer  a  human  being  proper. 

The  Pelagians  of  the  5th  century,  followed  by  modern 
Socinians,  and  many  of  the  New  England 
and  Socinkns^^'''^'''"'  school,  assert  that  Adam  could  only  have 
received  from  his  Maker  a  negative  inno- 
cency  ;  and  that  a  positive  righteousness  could  only  be  the 
result  of  his  own  voluntary  acts  of  choice.  Their  fundamental 
dogma  is,  that  nothing  has  moral  quality  except  that  which  is 
voluntary  (meaning  by  this,  the  result  of  an  act  of  choosing). 
Hence,  they  infer,  nothing  is  sin,  or  holiness,  but  acts  of  voli- 
tion. Hence,  a  con-created  rectitude  of  will  would  be  no 
righteousness,  and  have  no  merit,  because  not  the  result  of  the 
person's  own  act  of  choice.  Hence,  also,  they  say  a  priori 
dispositions  have  no  moral  quality,  except  where  they  are 
acquired  habitudes  of  disposition  resulting  from  voluntary  acts. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  297 

Of  this  kind  was  Adam's  holy  character,  they  say.  And  so,  in 
the  work  of  conversion,  it  is  irrational  to  talk  of  being  made 
righteous,  or  of  receiving  a  holy  heart ;  man  must  act  right- 
eousness, and  make  by  choosing  a  holy  heart. 

This  is  the   most   important  point  in  the  whole  subject  of 

man's  original  state  and  relation  to  God's  law. 
^Inta-mediate  Romish  g^f^j.^  proceeding,  however,  to  its  discussion, 

it  may  be  well  to  state  the  evasive  ground 
assumed  by  the  Romish  Church,  between  the  two.  In  order  to 
gain  a  semi-Pelagian  position,  without  avowing  the  above  odious 
principles,  they  teach  that  the  first  man  was  holy,  ab  initio  ;  but 
that  original -righteousness  was  not  a  natural  habitus  of  his  own 
will,  but  a  supernatural  grace,  communicated  to  him  temporarily 
by  God.  According  to  Rome,  concupiscence  is  not  sin,  and  it 
existed  in  holy  Adam;  but  it  has  a  perpetual  tendency  to  over-, 
ride  the  limits  of  conscience,  and  thus  become  sin.  So  long  as 
the  supernatural  grace  of  original  righteousness  was  communi- 
cated to  Adam,  he  stood  ;  the  moment  God  saw  fit  to  withdraw 
it,  natural  concupiscence  became  inordinate,  sin  was  born,  and 
man  fell.  The  refutation  of  this  view  of  man's  original  recti- 
tude will  be  found  below,  in  the  proof  that  concupiscence  is  sin, 
and  that  man  was  made  by  nature  holy.  We  understand  that  it 
is  implied,  if  man  had  not  sinned,  he  would  have  transmitted  that 
holy  nature  to  his  posterity  ;  surely  supernatural  grace  does  not 
"  run  in  the  blood  "  ?  The  idea  is  also  derogatory  to  God's 
wisdom  and  holiness,  that  He  should  make  a  creature  and 
endue  it  with  such  a  nature  as  was  of  itself  inadequate  to  fulfil 
the  end  of  its  existence  as  a  moral  being,  and  so  construct  its 
propensities,  that  sin  would  be  the  normal,  certain  and  immedi- 
ate result  of  their  unrestricted  action  !  It  represents  God  as 
creating  imperfections. 

(a)  We  assert  against  the  Pelagians,  that  man  was  positively 
Proof  of  our  view,    holy  by  nature,  as  he  came  from  God's  hand ; 
Pelagian  argument  am-    because  the  p'lea  that  nothing  can  have  moral 
"biguous.  quality  which    is  involuntary,   is  ambiguous 

and  sophistical.  That  which  occurs  or  exists  against  a  man's 
positive  volition  can  be  to  him  neither  praise  nor  blame.  This 
is  the  proposition  to  which  common  sense  testifies.  It  is  a  very 
different  proposition  to  say  that  there  cannot  be  moral  desert, 
"because  no  positive  volition  was  exercised  about  it.  (The  Pela- 
-gian's  proposition.)  For  then  there  could  be  no  sins  of  omis- 
sion, where  the  ill-desert  depended  on  the  very  fact  that  the 
man  wholly  failed  to  choose,  when  he  should  have  chosen.  The 
truth  is,  man's  original  dispositions  are  spontaneous ;  they  sub- 
sist and  operate  in  him  freely  ;  without  co-action  ;  and  only 
because  of  their  own  motion.  This  is  enough  to  show  them 
responsible,  and  blame-  or  praiseworthy.  A  man  always  feels 
good  or  ill  desert  according  as  his  spontaneous  feelings  are  in  a 
right  or  wrong  state,  not  according  to  the  mode  or  process  by 


298  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

which  they  came  into  that  state.  Men  strangely  forget  that 
their  free-agency  may  as  spontaneously  prefer,  and  thus  make 
them  responsible  for,  a  state  which  was  original,  as  though  this 
preference  of  theirs  had  originated  it.  Here  is  a  man  who  was 
born  with  carroty  hair  :  he  is  absurdly  proud  of  its  supposed 
beauty,  and  prefers  it  to  any  other.  Every  one  decides  that  he 
thereby  exhibits  precisely  the  same  bad  taste,  as  though,  having 
been  gifted  by  nature  with  the  finest  brown  hair,  he  had  pro- 
duced the  unsightly  color  with  a  hair-dye.  So,  he  who,  natu- 
rally having  a  perverse  disposition,  delights  in,  prefers,  and 
fosters  it,  is  as  truly  spontaneous  and  responsible  therein,  as 
though  he  had  himself  acquired  it  in  the  impossible  way  the 
Pelagians  imagine. 

Dr.  Thorn  well  (Lecture  xix.  p.  395,)  seems  to  teach,  that 
the  inability  of  the  will,  if  truly  natural,  in  the  sense  of  being 
a  part  of  man's  original  nature,  would  destroy  his  responsibility. 
He  defends  the  proposition  that  the  sinner  is  now  responsible, 
notwithstanding  his  thorough  inability  of  will,  on  the  exclusive 
ground  that  it  is  self-procured  by  man.  This  statement  must 
be  regarded  as  incautious.  It  is  very  true,  that  a  holy  God  is 
incapable  of  creating  any  rational  creature  with  a  wrong  dispo- 
sition. But  to  fallen  man  his  evil  habitus,  or  inability  of  will,  is 
now  natural :  it  is  connate,  and  is  the  regular  incident  of  man's 
nature.  In  what  sense  can  it  be  said  of  an  individual  man  now, 
that  his  inability  of  will  is  self-procured  ?  Only  as  he  fell  in 
Adam.  And  it  is  hard  to  see  how  Dr.  T.  can  save  his  own  true 
position  that  the  sinner  is  responsible,  notwithstanding  his  total 
inability  of  will,  without  implying  a  personal  unity  of  each  sin- 
ner and  Adam.  His  statement  is  unhappy,  again  :  because  it 
jeopardizes  the  clearness  of  the  all-important  distinction  (see 
Confession,  Chap,  ix.)  between  the  destruction  of  man's  essentia,. 
by  the  loss  of  any  constitutive  faculty  (which  would  end  his 
responsibility,)  and  that  total  "  aversion"  from  the  right,  which 
results  in  an  entire  inability,  and  yet  leaves  to  the  sinning  agent 
his  inalienable  spontaneity. 

(b.)  We  have  already  seen,  from  Gen.  i :  26,  27 ;  i  :-3i  ; 
Eccles.  vii  :  29,  that  man  was  made  in  the 
view."^''"''''''^'''''"'  in^age  of  God,  and  that  this  image- was  most 
essentially  his  original  righteousness.  God's 
word,  therefore,  sustains  our  view.  The  same  thing  is  seen  in 
the  language  of  Scripture  concerning  the  new  creation,  regen- 
eration. This,  the  Bible  expressly  affirms,  is  a  "  creation  unto 
righteousness."  Eph.  iv  :  24;  ii :  10  ;  Rom.  viii  :  29  :  Eph.  i  :4. 
It  is  a  supernatural  change  of  disposition,  wrought  not  merely 
through  motive,  but  by  almighty  power.  Eph.  i :  19,  20 ; 
ii :  1-5.  It  determines  not  only  the  acts,  but  the  will.  Ps. 
ex  :  3  ;  Phil,  ii  :  13.  And  God  has  Himself  suggested  the 
analogy  on  which  our  argument  proceeds,  by  choosing  the  term 
"new  creation,"  to  describe  it.     Hence,  as  the  new-born  soul 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  299 

is  made  holy,  and  does  not  merely  act  a  holiness,  the  first  man 
was  made  righteous.  Let  me  remark  here,  that  ancient  and 
modern  Pelagians  virtually  admit  the  justice  of  this,  by  deny- 
ing the  possibilty  of  such  a  regeneration  by  grace ;  and  on  the 
same  grounds  ;  that  a  state  of  holiness  not  primarily  chosen  by 
the  will,  could  not  be  meritorious.  On  their  theory  the  human 
soul  of  Christ  would  not  have  had  a  positive  righteousness  by 
nature.     But  see  Luke  i  :  35. 

(c.)  Their  theory  is  contradicted  by  common  sense  in  this : 
that  a  moral  neutrality,  in  a  being  who  had  the 
itv  Pos"ible^  ^"  ^^ '  rational  faculties  and  the  data  for  compre- 
hending the  moral  relations  in  a  given  case^ 
is  impossible ;  and  if  possible,  would  be  criminal.  It  is  the  very 
nature  of  conscience,  that  when  the  moral  relations  of  a  given 
case  are  comprehended,  her  dictum  is  immediate,  inevitable  and 
categorical.  The  dispositions  also  must  either  be  disposed 
actively,  one  way  or  the  other,  or  they  are  not  dispositions  at 
all.  They  cannot  be  in  equilibrio,  any  more  than  motion  can 
be  quiescent.  And  does  not  every  sane  conscience  decide  that 
if  Adam,  on  comprehending  his  moral  relations  to  his  infinitely 
good,  kind,  glorious  and  holy  Father,  had  simply  failed  to 
choose  His  love  and  service  instantly ;  if  he  had  been  capable 
of  hesitation  for  one  moment,  that  would  itself  have  constituted 
a  moral  defect,  a  sin  ? 

(d.)  Had  Adam's  will  been  in  the  state  of  equilibrium  de- 
No  Principle  of  right  scribed,  and  his  moral  character  initially  neg- 
choice  would  have  ative,  then  there  would  have  been  in  him 
been  present.  nothing  to   prompt  a  lioly  choice ;   and  the 

choice  which  he  might  have  made  for  that  which  is  formally 
right  would  have  had  nothing  in  it  morally  good.  For  the 
intention  determining  the  volition  gives  all  its  moral  quality. 
Thus  he  could  never  have  chosen  or  acted  a  righteousness, 
nor  initiated  a  moral  habitude,  his  initial  motive  being  non- 
moral. 

(e.)  These  false  principles  must  lead,  as  Pelagians  freely 
Corruption  of  In-  avow,  to  the  denial  of  original  depravity  in 
fants  refutes  Pelagian-  infants.  That  which  does  not  result  from  an 
^^™-  act  of  intelligent    choice,    say    they,    cannot 

have  moral  quality ;  so,  there  can  be  no  sin  of  nature,  any  more 
than  a  natural  righteousness.  But  that  man  has  a  sin  of  nature, 
is  proved  by  common  experience,  asserted  by  Scripture,  and 
demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  all  are  "  by  nature  the  children  of 
wrath,"  and  even  from  infancy  suffer  and  die  under  God's 
hand. 

(f )  If  the  doctrine  be  held  that  a  being  cannot  be  created 
righteous  without  choice,  then  those  that  die  in  infancy  cannot 
be  redeemed.  For  they  cannot  exercise  as  yet  intelligent  acts 
of  moral  choice,  and  thus  convert  themselves  by  choosing 
God's  service.     The  Pelagian    does  indeed  virtually  represent 


300  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  infant  as  needing  no  redemption,  having  no  sin  of  nature. 
But  the  Bible  and  experience  prove  that  he  does  need  redemp- 
tion :  whence,  on  Pelagian  principles,  the  damnation  of  all  who 
die  in  infancy  is  inevitable. 

Last,  the  theory  of  the  Pelagian  is  utterly  unphilosophical 
in  this,  that  it  has  no  experimental  basis.  It 
NJpacts.'^'''^'^  "^'  is  a  mere  hypothesis.  No  human  being  has 
ever  existed  consciously  in  the  state  of  moral 
indifference  which  they  assume ;  or  been  conscious  of  that 
initial  act  of  choice,  which  generated  his  moral  character. 
Surely  all  scientific  propositions  ought  to  have  some  basis  of 
experimental  proof!     Ethics  should  be  an  inductive  science. 

Any  intelligent  moral  creature  of  God  is  naturally  bound 
3.  Natural  Rela-  ^^  lovc  Him  with  all  his  heart,  and  serve  Him 
tion  of  Creature  to  w^tli  all  his  strength,  i.  e.,  this  obligation  is 
God's  Will.  j^q|-    created    by    positive    precept  only,    but 

arises  out  of  the  very  perfections  of  God,  and  the  relations  of 
the  creature,  as  His  property,  and  deriving  all  his  being  and 
capacities  from  God's  hands.  Doubtless  Adam's  holy  soul 
recognized  joyfully  this  obligation.  And  doubtless  his  under- 
standing was  endowed  with  the  sufficient  knowledge  of  so 
much  of  God's  will  as  related  to  his  duties  at  that  time.  It  may 
be  very  hard  for  us  to  say  how  much  this  was.  Now,  it  is  com- 
mon for  divines  to  say,  that  a  creature  cannot  merit  anything 
of  God.  This  has  struck  many  minds  as  doubtful  and  unfair, 
whence  it  is  important  that  we  should  properly  distinguish.  In 
denying  that  a  creature  of  God  can  merit  anything,  it  is  by 
no  means  meant  that  the  holy  obedience  of  a  creature  is 
before  God  devoid  of  good  moral  character.  It  possesses 
praiseworthiness,  if  holy,  and  undoubtedly  receives  that  credit 
at  God's  hands.  The  fact  that  it  is  naturally  due  to  God  does 
not  at  all  deprive  it  of  its  good  quality.  But  the  question  re- 
mains :  What  is  that  quality  ?  Obviously,  it  is  that  the  natural 
connection  between  holiness  and  happiness  shall  not  be  severed, 
as  long  as  the  holiness  continues  ;  that,  as  the  obedience  ren- 
dered is  that-  evoked  by  the  natural  relation  to  the  Creator's 
will ;  so  the  desert  acquired  is  of  that  natural  well-being 
appropriate  to  the  creature's  capacities.  The  guarantee  to  the 
creature  for  this,  in  the  absence  of  any  ^^ositive  covenant  from 
God,  is  simply  the  divine  goodness  and  righteousness,  which 
render  God  incapable  of  treating  a  holy  being  worse  than  this. 
The  creature  is  God's  property. 

But  it   is  equally  obvious  that  such  obedience  on  the  crea- 

ture's  part  cannot  bring  God  in   his  debt,  to 
The  Creature    Can-  j  j    .      1  •        •  ^ 

not  Merit.  condescend  to  him  in  any  way,  to  communi- 

cate Himself  as  a  source  of  supernatural 
blessedness,  or  stability  in  holiness,  or  to  secure  his  natural  well- 
being  longer  than  his  voluntary  and  mutable  obedience  is  con- 
tinued.    And  the  reasons  are,  simply  that  none    of  the  crea- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  3OI 

ture's  obedience  can  be  supererogatory,  he  owing  his  utmost  at 
any  rate  ;  and  that  all  his  being  and  capacities  were  given  by 
God,  and  are  His  property.  I  cannot  bring  my  benefactor  in 
my  debt  by  giving  him  something  which  he  himself  lent  to  me ; 
I  am  but  restoring  his  own.  This  is  what  is  intended  by  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  vii,  §  i.  The  Scriptures  clearly  sup- 
port it.  Ps.  xvi  :  2  ;  Job,  xxxv  :  7,  8 ;  Acts,  xvii  :  24,  25  ;  Ps. 
1:9-12;  Luke  xvii  :  7-10. 

But  it  is  equally  clear  that  mortality  and  the  connected  ills 
But    Death    would    ^^  ^^^^  could  not  have  been  the  natural  lot  of 
not  have  Entered  with-    man,    irrespective  of  his  sin   and   fall,  as  the 
°^*  ^'"*         '  Pelagians  and  Socinians  pretend.     Their  mo- 

tive in  assuming  this  repulsive  tenet,  is,  to  get  rid  of  the  argu- 
ment for  original  sin,  presented  by  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
infants  who  have  committed  no  overt  sin.  They  say  that  dis- 
solution, to  an  organized  animal  body,  is  as  natural  and  unavoid- 
able as  the  fall  of  the  leaves  from  the  trees.  They  claim,  that 
only  the  monadic  and  indiscerptible  can  be  exempt  from  that 
fate ;  and  that  it  is  the  natural  counterpart  of  generation,  and 
of  animal  nutrition.  I  reply,  that,  if  they  only  used  these 
arguments  to  prove  that  animal  bodies  are  not  self-existent, 
they  would  have  reason.  But  we  must  remember  that  the  hu- 
man person,  whose  dissolution  is  now  in  question,  is  a  responsi- 
ble agent,  not  a  vegetable,  whose  destiny  in  this  particular  a 
righteous  God  has  to  decide  judicially.  From  this  point  of 
view,  it  is  too  plain  to  need  argument,  that  the  providence  of 
that  same  almighty  power  which  framed  Adam's  body  at  first, 
was  abundantly  able  to  continue  its  organic  existence  indefin- 
itely. It  is  not  necessary  to  speculate  as  to  the  mode ;  but  we 
have  only  to  suppose  God  suspending  the  molecular  forces 
which  now  war  against  the  vital  force  ;  and  the  holy  man's 
body  might  have  all  the  permanency  of  a  diamond,  or  lump  of 
gold.  But  the  main  point  is  :  that  to  a  moral  person,  dissolu- 
tion is  not  a  mere  chemical  result,  but  a  penal  misery.  Does 
this  befall  a  responsible  agent  absolutely  guiltless  ?  The  asser- 
tion is  abhorrent  to  the  justice  and  goodness  of  God.  Physical 
evil  is  the  appointed  consequence  of  moral  evil,  and  the  sanc- 
tion threatened  for  the  breach  of  God's  will.  To  suppose  it 
appointed  to  an  obedient  moral  being,  irrespective  of  any  guilt, 
overthrows  either  God's  moral  attributes  or  His  providence, 
and  confounds  heaven  with  earth.  Second :  It  is  inconsistent 
with  that  image  of  God  and  that  natural  perfection,  in  which 
man  was  created.  The  workmanship  was  declared  to  be  very 
good  :  and  this  doubtless  excluded  the  seeds  of  its  own  de- 
struction. It  was  in  the  image  of  God ;  and  this  included 
immortality.  But  last,  the  Scriptures  imply  that  man  would 
neither  have  suffered  nor  died  if  he  had  not  sinned,  by  appoint- 
ing death  as  the  threat  against  transgression.  And  this,  while 
it  meant  more  than  bodily  death,  certainly  included  this,  as  is- 


302  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

evident  from  Gen.  111:17-19.  See,  then,  Gen.  n:iy;  Rom. 
v:  12;  vi :  23 ;  Matt,  xix  :  17;  Gal.  iii  :  12.  These  last  evi- 
dently have  reference  to  the  covenant  of  works  made  with 
Adam :  and  they  explicitly  say,  that  if  a  perfect  obedience 
were  possible,  (as  it  was  with  Adam  before  he  fell),  it  would 
secure  eternal  life. 

God's  act  in  entering  into  a  covenant  with  Adam,  if  it  be 

substantiated,  will  be  found  to  be  one  of  pure 
Covenant  of  Works  i  i  •  tt  •    u^.    •      ti 

Gracious.  grace  and  condescension.       He  might  justly 

have  held  him  always  under  his  natural  rela- 
tionship ;  and  Adam's  obedience,  however  long  continued, 
would  not  have  brought  God  into  his  debt  for  the  future. 
Thus,  his  holiness  being  mutable,  his  blessedness  would  always 
have  hung  in  suspense.  God,  therefore,  moved  by  pure  grace, 
condescended  to  establish  a  covenant  with  His  holy  creature, 
in  virtue  of  which  a  temporary  obedience  might  be  graciously 
accepted  as  a  ground  for  God's  communicating  Himself  to  him, 
and  assuring  him  ever  after  of  holiness,  happiness,  and  com- 
munion with  God.  Here  then  is  the  point  of  osculation  be- 
tween the  covenant  of  works,  and  the  covenant  of  grace,  the 
law  and  the  Gospel.  Both  offer  a  plan  of  free  justification,  by 
which  a  righteousness  should  be  accepted,  in  covenant,  to 
acquire  for  the  creature  more  than  he  could  strictly  claim  of 
God ;  and  thus  gain  him  everlasting  life.  In  the  covenant  of 
grace,  all  is  "ordained  in  the  hand  of  a  mediator,"  because 
man's  sin  had  else  excluded  him  from  access  to  God's  holiness. 
In  the  covenant  of  works,  no  mediator  was  required,  because 
man  was  innocent,  and  God's  purity  did  not  forbid  him  to  con- 
descend to  him.  But  in  both,  there  was  free  grace  ;  in  both  a 
justification  unto  life  ;  in  both,  a  gracious  bestowal  of  more  than 
man  had  earned. 

Under  the  natural  relation  of  man  to  law,  there  was  room 
neither  for  mercy  in  case  of  transgression,  nor  for  assured 
blessedness.  This  relation  was  modified  by  the  Covenant  of 
works,  in  three  respects.  First,  a  temporal  probation  was 
accepted,  in  place  of  an  everlasting  exposure  to  a  fall  under 
the  perpetual  legal  demand.  Second:  The  principle  of  repre- 
sentation was  introduced  by  which  the  risques  of  the  probation 
were  limited  to  one  man,  acting  for  all  instead  of  being  indef- 
initely repeated,  forever,  in  the  conduct  of  each  individual. 
Third,  a  reward  for  the  probationary  obedience  was  promised, 
which,  while  a  reward  for  right  works,  was  far  more  liberal 
than  the  works  entitled  to  ;  and  this  was  an  adoption  of  life, 
transferring  man  from  the  position  of  a  servant  to  that  of  a 
son,  and  surrounding  him  forever  with  the  safeguards  of  the 
divine  wisdom  and  faithfulness,  making  his  holiness  indefectible. 
Thus,  the  motive  of  God  in  this  covenant  was  the  same  infinite 
and  gratuitous  goodness,  which  prompted  him  to  the  covenant 
cf  grace. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  3O3 

The  evidences  that  God  placed  Adam  under  a  Covenant  of 
4.  Covenant  of  Works,    Works    are    well    stated    by   the    standard 
What?    Proof  of  its  In-  authors.     A  covenant,  in  its  more  technical 
stitution.  f^Q\  sense,  according  to  Turrettin,  implies  :   i. 

Two  equal  parties.     2.  Liberty  to  do  or  not  do  the  covenanted 
things  before  the  covenant  is  formed.     In  this  sense  there  could 
be  no  covenant  between  God  and  man.     But  in  the  more  gene- 
ral sense  of  a  conditional   promise,  such  a  transaction  was  evi- 
dently effected   between  God  and   Adam,  and  is  recorded  in 
Gen.   ii :   i6,  17.     There   are — ist,  the  two  parties.     God  pro- 
posing a  certain  blessing  and  penalty  on  certain  conditions,  and 
man  coming  under  those  conditions.     It  has  been  objected  that 
it  was    no    covenant,    because    man's    accession  to  it  was   not 
optional  with  him :   God's  terms  were  not  a  proposal  made  him, 
but  a  command  laid  upon  him.     I  reply,  if  he  did  not  have  an 
option  to  accede  or  not,  he   was  yet  voluntary  in  doing  so ;  for 
no  doubt  his  holy  will  joyfully  concurred  in  the  gracious  plan. 
And  such  compacts  between  governors  and  governed  are  by  no 
means  unusual  or  unnatural.     Witness  all  rewards  promised  by 
masters  and  teachers,  for  the  performance  of  tasks,  on  certain 
conditions.     2.  There   was  a   condition :  the  keeping  of  God's 
command.      3.    There  was  a   conditional  promise  and  threat : 
hfe  for  obedience,  and  death  for  disobedience.     That  the  prom- 
ise of  life  was  clearly  implied  is  shown   by  the  fact  itself,  that 
life  is  the    correlative    of  death,  which    was  threatened  in  the 
covenant.     For  the  soul  not  to  live,  is  to  die;  not  to  die,  is  to 
live.     We  argue  next,  from  the  natural  law  of  conscience,  wkich 
expects  life  for  obedience,  as  death  for  transgression.     Did  this 
fatherly  dispensation    to  Adam  suspend  the  favorable  part  of 
this  universal  law,  and  thus  place  him  in  a  worse,  instead  of  a 
more  hopeful  condition  ?     Heb.  xi :  6,  tells  us  "  he  that  cometh 
unto  God  must  beUeve  that  He  is,  and  that  He  is  the  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  Him."     Here  we  have  a  general 
principle  of  service :  surely  Adam's  introduction  into  Paradise 
did  not    revoke    it.     Third:  During   his    rectitude,  Adam   evi- 
dently enjoyed  the  use  of  the  "  Tree    of   Life,"  which  was  a 
sacramental  pledge  to  him  of  the  promised  result.     And  when 
the  covenant  was  broken,  his  partaking  of  this  seal  was  forbid- 
den, as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  new  state  of  things.    Unless 
Adam  had  had  before  him  the  promise  of  life  for  obedience, 
this    would    have    been    idle.       Fourth:    That    the    correlative 
promise  of  life  was  given,  appears  from  the  relation  of  Adam 
and  Christ,  the  second  Adam.     Both  were  representative  heads. 
The  covenant  which  feU  through  in  Adam's  inept  hands,  was 
successfully  accomplished  in  Christ's.     But  the  result  through 
Him  was   a  "justification   of  life."     And   in  the  frequent  con- 
trasts which  the  Epistles  of  Paul  draw  between  the  justification 
of  works   and  of  faith,  it   is  never  hinted  that  the  impossibility 
of  the  former  now  arises    from    anything    in    the    covenant  of 


304  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

works,  but  only  from  man's  sin  and  lost  estate.     See  Rom.  viii  : 

3,  4.     And  last :  the  Scriptures  in  expounding  the  nature  of  the 

Covenant  of  Works,  expressly  say  that  life  would  have  been  the 

result  of   perfect  obedience.      Let  the  student  consult  Levit. 

xviii :  5  ;   Deut.  xxx  :  15  ;   Ezek.  xx  :  11  ;   Matt,  xix :  17;  Rom. 

ii :  6,   7  :  vii :  10 ;  X  :  5  ;  Gal.  iii :  12.     The   fact  that  in  some  of 

these  places  the  offer  of  life  through  the  covenant  of  works  was 

only  made  in   order  to  apply  an   argument  ad  hojnineni  to  the 

self-righteous  Jews,  does  not  weaken  this  evidence.     For  the 

reason  that  life  cannot,  in  fact,  be  gained  through  that  covenant, 

is  not  that  it  was  not  truly  promised   to  man  in  it,  and  in  good 

faith ;  but  that  man   has   now  become  through  the  fall,  morally 

incapable  of  fulfilling  the   conditions.     Nor  is   the  argument  in 

favor  of  our  position   weakened  surely  by  the  other  fact ;  that 

the  Apostle's  reference  to  this  covenant  of  works  promising  life 

for  obedience,  was  designed  to  shut  up  sinners  who  have  broken 

it,  under  condemnation. ' 

In  this  transaction  Adam  represented  his  posterity  as  well 

as  himself.  This  appears  from  i.  The   parallel 
Adam  a  Kepresenta-         1  •    1      •       j  i_    ,  r-^     •   .  1     a    1 

tive.  which  is   drawn   between  Christ  and  Adam. 

Rom. v;  12-19;  i  Cor.  xv  :  22,  47.  In  almost 
every  thing  they  are  contrasted,  yet  Christ  is  the  second  Adam. 
The  only  parallelism  is  in  the  fact  that  they  were  both  repre- 
sentative persons.  2.  The  fact  proves  it,  that  the  penalty  de- 
nounced on  Adam  has  actually  taken  effect  on  every  one  of  his 
posterity.  See  Gen.  v :  3.  3.  The  Bible  declares  that  sin, 
death,  and  all  penal  evil  came  into  the  world  through  Adam. 
Rom.  v:  12  ;  i  Cor.  xv:  22.  4.  Although  the  various  other  com- 
munications of  the  first  three  chapters  of  Genesis  are  appa- 
rently addressed  to  Adam  singly,  we  know  that  they  applied 
equally  to  his  posterity,  as  the  permission  to  eat  of  all  the  fruits 
of  the  earth  ;  the  command  to  multiply  and  replenish  the  earth  ; 
the  threatened  pains  of  child-bearing;  the  curse  of  the  ground, 
and  the  doom  of  labor,  &c. 

Every  one  is  familiar  with  the  Bible  account  of  the  condi- 
tion of  this  covenant:  the  eating  or  not  eat- 
of  thecovenanL"  ^^^  "^S^  °^  ^^^^  ir\i\t  of  a  tree  called  the  "  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil."  This  prohi- 
bition was,  obviously,  a  "  positive  command."  Our  divines  are 
accustomed  to  argue,  very  reasonably,  that  when  God's  design 
was  to  'ipply  a  naked  test  of  the  principle,  obedience,  a  positive 
command  is  better  adapted  to  the  end  than  a  perpetual  moral  one. 
For  the  latter  class  have  usually  rational  grounds  in  the  interests 
and  affections  of  men  ;  but  the  ground  of  the  positive  precept 
is  only  the  rightful  authority  of  God.  A  more  difficult  point  is  : 
Whether  this  single,  positiv^e  precept  substituted,  during  Adam's 
probation,  all  the  moral  law.  In  other  words  :  Was  this  the 
only  command  Adam  now  had  to  observe  :  the  only  one  by  the 
breach  of  which  he  could  fall  ?     Presbyterians  answer  this  in 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY. 


305 


the  negative.  We  regard  all  the  moral  law  known  to  Adam  is 
represented  in  this  command,  as  the  crucial  test  of  his  obedi- 
ence to  all.  The  condition  of  his  covenant  was  perfect  compli- 
ance, in  heart  and  act,  with  all  God's  revealed  law.  This  is 
manifest  from  the  unreasonableness  of  any  moral  creature's 
exemption  from  the  law  of  God,  which  is  immutable.  It 
appears  also,  from  all  the  representations  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  quoted  in  a  previous  paragraph ;  where  the  obedience 
required  is  to  the  whole  law.  It  appears,  finally,  from  this 
obvious  view  :  that  a  consistent  sense  of  moral  obligation  was 
the  only  thing  which  could  have  given  to  Adam's  compliance 
with  the  positive   prohibition,   any   moral  significance  'or  worth. 

The  seal  of  the  covenant  is  usually  understood  to  be  the 
tree  of  life,  whose  excellent  fruit  did  not,  indeed,  medically 
work  immortality  in  Adam's  frame,  but  was  appointed  as  a 
symbol  and  pledge,  or  seal  of  it.  Hence,  when  he  had  forfeited 
the  promise,  he  was  debarred  from  the  sign.  The  words  of 
Gen.  iii :  22  are  to  be  understood  sacramentally. 

Why  is  it  supposed   that  an  obedience   for  a  limited  time 

would  have  concluded  the  Covenant  trans- 

The  Probation  Tern-  ,  •        -,      t^i  •      i.u    4-  u  j. 

,^, „.,,.„  action  ?      I  he  answer  is,  that  such  a  covenant, 

with  an  indefinite  probation,  would  have  been 
no  covenant  of  life  at  all.  The  creature's  estate  would  have 
been  still  forever  mutable,  and  in  no  respect  different  from  that 
in  which  creation  itself  placed  him,  under  the  first  natural  obli- 
gation to  his  Maker.  Nay,  in  that  case  man's  estate  would 
be  rightly  called  desperate ;  because,  he  being  mutable  and 
finite,  and  still  held  forever  under  the  curse  of  a  law,  which  he 
was,  any  day,  liable  to  break,  the  probability  that  he  would 
some  day  break  it  would  in  the  infinite  future  mount  up  to  a 
moral  certainty.  The  Redeemer  clearly  implies  that  the  pro- 
bation was  to  be  temporary,  in  saying  to  the  young  Ruler:  "  If 
thou  wilt  enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments."  If  the  pro- 
bation had  no  limits,  his  keeping  them  could  never  make  him 
enter  in.  Here  again,  Adam's  representative  character  unavoid- 
ably implies  that  the  probation  was  temporary.  His  personal 
action  under  the  trial  was  to  decide  whether  his  posterity  were 
to  be  born  heirs  of  wrath,  or  adopted  sons  of  God.  Had  his 
probation  been  endless,  their  state  would  have  been  wholly 
unsettled.  Only  a  moments'  reflection  is  needed,  to  show  the 
preposterous  confusion  which  would  arise  from  that  state  of 
facts.  Adam's  trial  still  continuing  thousands  of  years  after 
Seth's  birth,  for  instance,  and  after  his  glorification,  if  the 
father  then  fell,  the  son's  glorification  must  have  been  revoked. 


20* 


LECTURE  XXVII. 

THE  FALL,  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  sin  ?     Is  guilt  its  essence,  or  adjunct  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  6.  Cat.  Qu.  14.  Turrettin,  Log.  ix,  Qu.  i,  3.  Knapp, 
^  73.  Muller,  "Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  ch.  2,  3.  Bp.  Butler's  Sermons, 
11-14.  Thornwell,  Lect.  14,  pp.  347,  389.  Dr.  Wm.  Cunningham,  Historical 
Theol.,  ch.  19,  §  5. 

2.  What  was  Adam's  first  sin?  How  did  it  affect  his  own  moral  state  and  rela- 
tions to  God  ?     How  could  a  will  prevalently ><^holy  form  its  first  unholy  volition  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  6,  7,  8.  Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  i.  Dick,  Lect.  47.  Knapp, 
§  85.  Watson,  ch.  18,  §  11.  Witsius,  bk.  i,  ch.  8,  g  i,  13.  Thornwell,  Lect. 
10,  pp.  240-247.     Butler's  Analog}'.     Muller,  Chr.  Doc.  of  Sin,  bk.  ii. 

3.  Who  was  the  tempter  ?     What  the  sentence  on  him  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  7,  ^  9,  &c.  Dickj  Lect.  44.  Hill  and  Watson  as 
above. 

4.  What  were  the  effects  of  Adam's  fall  on  his  posterity,  (a)  according  to  the 
Pelagian  theory ;  (b)  the  lower  Arminian  theory ;  (c)  the  Wesleyan ;  and  (d)  the 
Calvinistic  theory  ? 

Augustine,  Vol.  ii,  Ep.  899,  c,  Vol.  viii.  De  Natura  et  Gratia,  and  Libri 
Duo  adv.  Pelagius  et  Ccelcstius.     Hill  as  above.     Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  9, 

10.  Dick,  Lect.  46,  47.  Cunningham,  Hist.  Theol.,  ch.  10,  §  ,  12,  and  ch. 
19,  §  3.  Thornwell,  Lect.  13.  Whitby's  Five  Points.  Knapp,  |  79,  10. 
Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  18,  |  3,  4.     Wesley  on  Original  Sin. 

5.  Are  the  souls  of  Adam's  posterity  directly  created  or  generated  ?  And  how 
is  depravity  propagated  in  them  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  12,  and  Loc.  v,  Qu.  13.     Baird's  Elohim  Revealed,  ch. 

11.  Sampson  on  Hebrews,  ch.  12,  v.  9.  Literary  and  Evangel.  Magazine,  of 
Dr.  Jno.  H.  Rice,  vol.  iv.  p.  285,  &c.  Watson,  ch.  18,  ^  4.  Augustine,  De 
Origine  Animarnm. 

"\X/'E  have  now  reached,  in  our  inquiries,  the  disastrous  place, 
where  sin  first  entered  our  race.     Let  us  therefore  pause, 
and  ascertain  clearly  what  is  its  nature. 

The  most   characteristic   Hebrew   word   for  it   is   n^LOH^ 

ITT-: 
Sin  what?  which  has  the  rudimental  idea  of  missing  the 

aim.  The  Greek,  huxioria  is  strikingly  similar, 
expressing  nearly  the  same  idea,  of  failure  of  designed  con- 
junction. The  Latin,  pcccatum  is  supposed  by  some  to  be  a 
modification  of  pec7iatum,  brutishness,  and  by  others,  of  pelli- 
catum,  moral  adultery.  These  words  suggest,  what  will  be 
found  true  upon  analysis,  that  the  common  abstract  element  of 
all  sins  is  a  privative  one,  lack  of  conformity  to  a  standard.  If 
this  is  so,  then  farther,  sin  can  only  be  understood,  when  viewed 
as  the  antithesis  to  that  standard,  a  law  of  right,  and  to  the 
righteousness  which  is  conformed  thereto.  The  student  may 
be  reminded  here,  in  passing,  of  that  speculation  which  some 
of  the  Reformed  divines  borrowed  from  the  Latin  Scholastics, 
by  which  they  made  sin  out  a  negation.  Their  reason  seemed 
to  be  mainly  this :  That  God,  as  universal  First  Cause,  must  be 
the  agent  of  all  that  has  entity ;  and  so,  all  entities  must  be 
per  se  good.  Hence  sin,  which  is  evil,  must  be  no  entity,  a 
306 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  3O7 

negation.  This  doctrine  received  such  appHcations  as  this: 
That  even  in  adultery  or  murder,  the  action  per  se,  so  far  as  it 
is  action  only,  is  good ;  the  negative  moral  quality  is  the  evil. 
We  see  here,  the  mint,  from  which  was  coined  that  dangerous 
distinction,  by  which  the  same  divines  sought  to  defend  God's 
efficacious  prcznirsus  in  sinful  acts  of  creatures.  (See  Lect. 
XXV,  end.)  To  a  plain  mind,  the  escape  from  this  confusion 
is  easy.  Sins  are,  indeed,  not  entities,  save  as  they  are  acts  or 
states  of  creatures,  who  are  personal  entities.  When  we  speak 
of  sins  in  the  abstract,  if  we  mean  anything,  we  speak  of  the 
quality  common  to  the  concrete  acts,  which  we  literally  call 
sins :  the  quality  of  sinfulness.  What  now,  is  a  quality, 
abstracted  from  all  the  entities  which  it  qualifies?  Not  neces- 
sarily a  negation,  but  a  mere  abstraction.  As  to  the  quibble, 
that  God  is  the  agent  of  all  that  has  entity ;  we  reply :  Predi- 
cate the  real  free-agency  of  the  sinning  creature ;  and  we  shall 
have  no  philosophic  trouble  about  that  truth  of  common  sense, 
that  the  actor  is  the  agent  of  his  own  sinful  act;  and  not  God. 

Some  have  supposed  that  the  just  distinction  between 
''sins  of  commission  and  omission"  must  overthrow  the  defini- 
tion of  sinfulness  as  always  a  privative  quality.  This,  say  they, 
may  be  true  of  sins  of  omission ;  but  then  it  cannot  be  true  of 
sins  of  commission,  which  are  positive.  This  is  invalid,  for  the 
basis  of  that  distinction  is  different.  Both  classes  of  sins  are 
equally  privative,  and  equally  real.  The  difference  is,  that  sins 
of  commission  are  breaches  of  prohibitory  commands,  and  sins 
of  omission  of  affirmative  precepts.  In  either  case,  the  sinful- 
ness arises  out  of  evil  motive,  and  this  is,  in  either  case,  positive  ; 
while  its  common  quality  is  discrepancy  from  the  standard  of 
right.  And  now,  if  any  other  proof  of  our  definition  is  needed, 
than  its  consistency,  we  find  it  in  i  Jno.  iii  :  4,  where  the  Apos- 
tle gives  this  as  his  exact  definition  of  sin ;  arguing  against  a 
possible  Antinomian  tendency  to  excuse  sins  in  believers,  as 
venial,  that  all  sin  is  lawless;  '//  b-nao-'ta  iaziu  -q  dvouia — "The 
sin  is  the  discrepancy  from  law."     (Scil.  vofio:^  Ot(fj.) 

Dr.  Julius  Miiller,  in  his  important  work,  "  The  Christian 
Doctrine  of  Sin,"  revives,  in  a  new  form,  the  erroneous  doc- 
trine of  Jon.  Edwards,  resolving  sin  into  selfishness.  Seizing 
upon  the  declaration  of  our  Savior,  that  love  to  God  is  the  first 
and  great  command,  on  which  the  whole  law  depends,  he 
resorts  to  the  admitted  fact,  that  sin  must  be  the  antithesis  of 
righteousness ;  and  concludes  that  the  former  must  therefore  be 
love  of  self.  Why  may  we  not  conclude,  from  the  same  pro- 
cess, that  since  all  duty  is  included  in  the  love  of  God,  all  sin 
will  be  included  in  hatred  of  God  ?  (instead  of  love  of  self.) 
This  gives  us  a  more  plausibly  exact  antithesis. 

But  more  seriously,  the  student  is  referred  to  the  remarks 
in  Lecture  ix,  upon  Edwards'  theory,  and  to  Bp.  Butler's  Ser- 
mons.    We  now  add,  with  especial  reference  to  Miiller's  spec- 


308  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ulation,  these  points  of  objection.  If  all  sin  is  resolved  into 
self-love  as  its  essence,  then  is  not  all  self-love  sinful  ?  If  he 
answers,  No,  then  I  reply :  So  there  is  a  sinful,  and  a  righteous 
self-love?  He  must  say,  Yes.  Then,  I  demand  that  he  shall 
give  me  the  differentiating  element  in  the  sinful  self-love,  which 
makes  it,  unlike  the  oilier  self-love,  morally  evil.  Will  he  give 
me  self-love  for  this  differentiating  element  ?  This  is  but  mov- 
ing in  a  circle.  Again :  it  would  follow,  that  if  some  self-love 
is  lawful,  and  yet  self-love  is  the  essence  of  all  sin,  it  must 
become  sin,  by  becoming  too  great ;  and  thus  sin  and  holiness 
would  differ  only  in  degree  !  Once  more,  if  this  theory  is  to 
be  carried  out  with  any  consistency,  it  must  teach,  that  the  act 
which  is  intended  by  me  to  promote  my  own  well-being,  can 
only  be  virtuous  provided  I  sincerely  aim  at  that  well-being 
(which  happens  to  be  my  own)  from  motives  purely  impersonal 
and  disinterested.  In  other  words,  to  do  any  act  aright,  pro- 
motive of  my  own  welfare,  I  must  do  it,  not  at  all  for  the  sake 
of  myself,  but  exclusively  for  the  sake  of  God  and  my  fellows, 
as  they  are  interested  in  my  welfare.  We  will  not  dwell  on  the 
question,  whether  any  man  ever  seeks  his  own  good  from  so 
sublimated  a  motive  ;  we  only  point  to  this  resultant  absurdity; 
all  one's  fellows,  acting  in  this  style  of  pure  disinterestedness, 
are  directly  seeking  his  welfare ;  and  in  this  is  their  virtue. 
How  can  it  be  then,  that  it  is  always  sinful  for  him  to  seek  that 
same  end  ? 

Does  anyone  ask,  into  what  common  type  all  sin  may  be 
resolved  ?  We  answer  :  Into  that  of  sin.  We  have  no  other 
definition  than  this  :  Sin  is  sin.  Or  sin  is  the  opposite  of  holi- 
ness ;  sin  is  discrepancy  from  an  absolutely  holy  law.  If  this 
is  so,  and  if  the  idea  of  moral  good  is  one  of  ultimate  sim- 
plicity, and  so,  incapable  of  definition  in  simpler  terms,  we  are 
to  accept  the  same  view  as  to  sin.  All  attempts  to  reduce  it  to 
some  simpler  element,  as  they  have  been  prompted  either  by 
an  affectation  of  over-profundity,  or  by  an  over-weening  desire 
to  unify  the  functions  of  man's  soul,  have  also  resulted  in 
confusion  and  error. 

The  next  question  concerning  the  nature  of  sin  would  be, 
whether  it  is  limited  to  acts  of  will,  or  includes  also  states  of 
moral  propensity  and  habit.  The  answer  given  by  the  Calvin- 
ist  is  familiar  to  you.  "  Sin  is  not  being,  or  not  doing  what 
God  requires."  Not  only,  then,  are  intentional  acts  of  will  con- 
trary to  law,  sinful ;  but  also  the  native  disposition  to  these 
acts,  and  the  desires  to  commit  them  not  yet  formed  into  voli- 
tions. This  raises  the  oft  mooted  question,  whether  "  concu- 
piscence is  sin  ? "  This  question  has  been  already  debated 
from  a  rational  point  of  view,  in  Lect.  xii,  §  i,  and  the  cognate 
one,  in  the  xxvi,  §  2.  It  is  only  necessary  now,  to  add  a  sum- 
mary of  the  Scriptural  argument.  The  Bible,  in  many  places 
applies  moral  terms  to  the  abiding  habitudes  of  the  soul,  both 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  3O9 

acquired  and  native.  See  Ps.  li  :  5  ;  Iviii  :  3  ;  Matt,  xii :  35,  or 
33;  vii  :  17.  James  i  :  15  says:  "Then  when  concupiscence 
hath  conceived,  it  bringeth  forth  sin."  Rome,  indeed,  quotes 
this  text  as  implying  that  concupiscence  is  not  itself  sin  ;  for  it 
must  "  conceive,"  must  be  developed  into  another  form,  in 
order  to  become  sin.  Bu^t  James  here  evidently  uses  the  word 
sin  in  the  sense  of  sins  of  act.  So  he  uses  "  death,"  the  mature 
result  of  "sin  when  it  is  finished,"  in  the  sense  of  the  final 
spiritual  death,  or  the  second  death ;  for  many  other  Scriptures 
assure  us  that  a  state  of  sin  is  a  state  of  death.  He  would 
rather  teach  us,  in  this  text,  that  concupiscence  and  actual  sin, 
being  mother  and  daughter,  are  too  closely  related  not  to  have 
the  same  moral  nature.  But  the  most  conclusive  text  is  the 
1 0th  Commandment.  See  this  expounded  by  Paul,  Rom.  vii  : 
7.  He  had  not  known  coveting,  except  the  law  had  said, 
"  Thou  shalt  not  covet."  And  it  was  by  this  law,  that  he  was 
made  to  know  sin.  How  could  he  more  expressly  name 
concupiscence  as  sin  ? 

There  is,  however,  a  distinction,  which  is  needed  here,  for 
the  consistent  establishment  of  this  doctrine,  coveting  is  often 
defined  as  "desiring  the  possession  of  another."  Now,  it  is 
clear,  that  there  are  such  desires,  and  such  thoughts,  w  hich  are 
not  the  sin  of  concupiscence.  The  intellectual  apprehension 
of  natural  good,  not  possessed  by  me,  but  attainable,  cannot  be 
sinful  always ;  for  if  so,  I  could  never  put  forth  a  normal  and 
rational  effort  for  any  good.  So  a  certain  desire  for  such  good 
must  also  be  innocent;  else  I  could  never  have  a  lawful 
motive  for  effort,  tending  to  the  advancement  of  my  own  wel- 
fare. A  very  practical  instance  may  evince  this.  A  godly 
minister  needs  a  useful  horse.  He  sees  his  neighbour  possess- 
ing the  horse  which  suits  his  purposes.  He  righteously  offers, 
and  endeavors,  to  buy  him.  But,  as  a  reasonable  free  agent, 
he  could  not  have  proposed  to  part  with  a  valuable  considera- 
tion for  this  horse,  unless  he  had  had,  first,  an  intellectual  judg- 
ment of  the  animal's  fitness  for  his  uses ;  and  second,  a  desire 
to  enjoy  its  utility.  But  he  had  these  sentiments  while  the 
horse  was  still  another  man's  ?  Is  it,  then  neccessary  for  one 
to  break  the  loth  Commandent  in  order  to  effect  an  equitable 
horse-trade  ?  The  answer  is :  These  sentiments  in  the  good 
man  have  not  yet  reached  the  grade  of  evil  concupiscence. 
This  sinful  affection  then,  is  not  merely  desire  for  attainable 
good ;  but  desire  for  an  attainment  conditioned  wrongfully ; 
desire  still  harboured  —  though  not  matured  into  a  purpose  of 
will  —  while  seen  in  the  conscience  to  be  thus  unlawfully  con- 
'  ditioned.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  moment  this  good  man's 
desire  to  possess  the  useful  animal  verged  into  a  craving  to 
gain  it  unfairly,  as  by  payment  in  spurious  money,  or  untruthful 
<iepreciation  of  its  market  value,  that  moment  concupiscence 
was  born.     This  distinction  removes  all  just  objections  to  the 


3IO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Scripture  teaching.  It  is  useful  also,  in  explaining  how  an 
impeccable  Redeemer  could  be  "tempted  of  the  devil,"  and  yet 
wholly  without  sin.  Had  this  holy  soul  been  absolutely  imper- 
vious to  even  the  intellectual  apprehension  of  attainable  good, 
and  to  the  natural  sentiment  arising  on  that  apprehension,  he 
would  not  have  been  susceptible  of  temptation.  But  he  had 
these  normal  traits.  Hence,  he  could'be  tempted,  and  yet  feel 
not  the  first  pulse  of  evil  concupiscence.. 

What  Turrettm  calls  potential  guilt   is  the  intrinsic  moral 

^  .       ,  ill-desert  of  an  act  or  state.     This  is  of  the 

Guilt,  what?  r  ,1         •         -i.  •      •    J       J 

essence  oi  the  sm  :  it  is  indeed  an  insepara- 
ble part  of  its  sinfulness.  Actual  guilt  is  obligation  to  punish- 
ment. This  is  the  established  technical  sense  of  the  word 
among  theologians.  Guilt,  thus  defined,  is  obviously  not  of  the 
essence  of  sin ;  but  is  a  relation,  viz.,  to  the  penal  sanction  of 
law.  For  if  we  suppose  no  penal  sanction  attached  to  the  dis- 
regard of  moral  relations,  guilt  would  not  exist,  though  there 
were  sin.     This  distinction  will  be  found  important. 

The  first  sin  of  our  first  father  is  found  described  in   Gen. 

iii  :  I — 7,    in    words    which    are    familiar   to- 
2.  Man's  First  Sin.  1-1.  •  a.-  u  -j       ^1 

every    one.       ihis    narrative    has    evidently 

some  of  that  picturesque  character  appropriate  to  the  primeval 
age,  and  caused  by  the  scarcity  of  abstract  and  definite  terms 
in  their  language.  But  it  is  an  obvious  abuse  to  treat  it  as  a 
mere  allegory,  representing  under  a  figure  man's  self-deprava- 
tion and  gradual  change :  for  the  passages  preceeding  and  fol- 
lowing it  are  evidently  plain  narrative,  as  is  proved  by  a  hundred 
references.  Moreover,  the  transactions  of  this  very  passage 
are  twice  referred  to  as  literal  (2  Cor.  xi  :  3  ;  i  Tim.  ii  :  14),  and 
the  events  are  given  as  the  explanation  of  the  peculiar  chastise- 
ment allotted  to  the  daughters  of  Eve. 

The  sin  of  Adam  consisted  essentially,  not  in  his  bodily 

act,  of  course  ;  but  in  his  .intentions.  Popish 
Ekment'^^  ''^   ^'''^    theologians  usually  say  that  the  first  element 

of  the  sin  of  his  heart  was  pride,  as  being 
awakened  by  the  taunting  reference  of  the  Serpent  to  his 
dependence  and  subjection,  and  as  being  not  unnatural  in  so 
exalted  a  being.  The  Protestants,  with  Turrettin,  usually  say 
it  was  unbelief;  because  pride  could  not  be  naturally  suggested 
to  the  creature's  soul,  unless  unbelief  had  gone  before  to  oblit- 
erate his  recollection  of  his  proper  relations  to  an  infinite  God  ; 
because  belief  of  the  mind  usually  dictates  feeling  and  action 
in  the  will ;  because  the  temptation  seems  first  aimed  (Gen. 
iii  :  i)  to  produce  unbelief,  through  the  creature's  heedlessness  ; 
and  because  the  initial  element  of  error  must  have  been  in  the 
understanding,  the  will  being  hitherto  holy. 

How  a  holy  will  could  come  to  have  an  unholy  volition  at 

Tf -IT  ,-.•  first,  is  a   most   difficult   inquirv.     And    it   is 

If  Volitions  are  cer-  11,  ,       r  •      '  r  o  1 

tainly   Determined,    much  harder  as  to  the  first  sui  ot  Satan,  tnaa 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  3II 

How  could  a   Holy    of  Adam,  because  the  angel,  hitherto  per- 
Wrong  Volition  ?    ^^^^    ^^^^>  ^^^  ^^  tempter  to  mislead  him,  and  had 

not  even  the  bodily  appetites  for  natural 
good  which  in  Adam  were  so  easily  perverted  into  concupis- 
cence. Concupiscence  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  the 
cause,  pre-existing  before  sin ;  because  concupiscence  is  sin, 
and  needs  itself  to  be  accounted  for  in  a  holy  heart.  Man's,  or 
Satan's,  mutability  cannot  be  the  efficient  cause,  being  only  a 
condition  slue  qua  non.  Nor  is  it  any  solution  to  say  with  Tur- 
rettin,  the  proper  cause  was  a  free  will  perverted  voluntarily. 
Truly ;  but  how  came  a  right  will  to  pervert  itself  while  yet  right  ? 
And  here,  let  me  say,  is  far  the  most  plausible  objection 
against  the  certainty  of  the  will,  which  Arminians,  &c.,  might 
urge  far  more  cunningly  than  (to  my  surprise)  they  do.  If  the 
evil  dispositions  of  a  fallen  sinner  so  determine  his  volitions  as 
to  ensure  that  he  will  not  choose  spiritual  good,  why  did  not 
the  holy  dispositions  of  Adam  and  Satan  ensure  that  they 
would  never  have  a  volition  spiritually  evil  ?  And  if  they 
somehow  chose  sin,  contrary  to  their  prevalent  bent,  why  may 
not  depraved  man  sometime  choose  good? 

The    mystery    cannot    be   fully   solved   how  the   first   evil 

choice  could  voluntarily  arise  in  a  holy  soul ; 

but  we  can  clearly  prove  that  it  is  no  sound 
reasoning  from  the  certainty  of  a  depraved  will  to  that  of  a  holy 
finite  will.  First :  a  finite  creature  can  only  be  indefectible 
through  the  perpetual  indwelling  and  superintendence  of  infi- 
nite wisdom  and  grace,  guarding  the  finite  and.  fallible  attention 
of  the  soul  against  sin.  This  was  righteously  withheld  from 
Satan  and  Adam.  Second :  while  righteousness  is  a  positive 
attribute,  incipient  sin  is  a  privative  trait  of  human  conduct. 
The  mere  absence  of  an  element  of  active  regard  for  God's 
will,  constitutes  a  disposition  or  volition  wrong.  Now,  while 
the  positive  requires  a  positive  cause,  it  is  not  therefore  inferri- 
ble that  the  negative  equally  demands  a  positive  cause.  To 
make  a  candle  burn,  it  must  be  lighted ;  to  make  it  go  out,  it 
need  only  be  let  alone.  The  most  probable  account  of  the 
way  sin  entered  a  holy  breast  first,  is  this:  An  object  was 
apprehended  as  in  its  mere  nature  desirable ;  not  yet  as  unlaw- 
ful. So  far  there  is  no  sin.  But  as  the  soul,  finite  and  fallible 
in  its  attention,  permitted  an  overweening  apprehension  and 
desire  of  its  natural  adaptation  to  confer  pleasure,  to  override 
the  feeling  of  its  unlawfulness,  concupiscence  was  developed. 
And  the  element  which  first  caused  the  mere  innocent  sense  of 
the  natural  goodness  of  the  object  to  pass  into  evil  concupis- 
cence, was  privative,  viz.,  the  failure  to  consider  and  prefer 
God's  will  as  the  superior  good  to  mere  natural  good.  Thus  nat- 
ural desire  passed  into  sinful  selfishness,  which  is  the  root  of  all 
evil.  So  that  we  have  only  the  privative  element  to  account 
for.     When  we  assert  the   certainty  of   ungodly  choice  in  an 


312  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

evil  Will,  we  only  assert  that  a  state  of  volition  whose  moral 
quality  is  a  defect,  a  negation,  cannot  become  the  cause  of  a 
positive  righteousness.  When  we  assert  the  mutability  of  a 
holy  will  in  a  finite  creature,  we  only  say  that  the  positive  ele- 
ment of  righteousness  of  disposition  may,  in  the  shape  of 
defect,  admit  the  negative,  not  being  infinite.  So  that  the 
cases  are  not  parallel :  and  the  result,  though  mysterious,  is  not 
impossible.  To  make  a  candle  positively  give  light,  it  must  be 
lighted ;  to  cause  it  to  sink  into  darkness,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  let  it  alone  :  its  length  being  limited,  it  burns  out. 

Adam's  fall  resulted  in  two  changes,  moral  and  physical. 
Effects   of   Sin   in    The   latter  was   brought   on    him    by    God's 
Adam— Self-Deprava-    providence,  cursing  the   earth   for  his   sake, 
^°"-  and  thus  entailing  on  him  a  life  of  toil  and 

infirmities,  ending  in  bodily  death.  The  former  was  more 
immediately  the  natural  and  necessary  result  of  his  own  con- 
duct ;  because  we  can  conceive  of  God  as  interposing  act- 
ively to  punish  sin,  but  we  cannot  conceive  of  Him  as  interpos- 
ing to  produce  it.  It  has  been  supposed  very  unreasonable 
that  one  act,  momentary,  the  breach  of  an  unimportant,  positive 
precept,  should  thus  revolutionize  a  man's  moral  habitudes  and 
principles,  destroying  his  original  righteousness,  and  making 
him  a  depraved  being.  One  act,  they  say,  cannot  form  a  habit. 
We  will  not  answer  this,  by  saying,  with  Turrettin,  that  the  act 
virtually  broke  each  precept  of  the  decalogue ;  or  that  it  was  a 
"universal  sin;"  nor  even  by  pleading  that  it  was  an  aggrava- 
ted and  great  sin.  Doubtless  it  was  a  great  sin  ;  because  it 
violated  the  divine  authority  most  distinctly  and  pointedly 
declared  ;  because  it  did  it  for  small  temptation ;  because  it 
was  a  sin  against  great  motives,  privileges,  and  restraints. 
There  is  also  much  justice  in  Turrettin's  other  remarks,  that  by 
this  clear,  fully  declared  sin,  the  chief  end  of  the  creature  was 
changed  from  God  to  self;  and  the  chief  end  controls  the 
whole  stream  of  moral  action  directed  to  it ;  that  the  authority 
on  which  all  godliness  reposes,  was  broken  in  breaking  this  one 
command ;  that  shame  and  remorse  were  inevitably  born  in  the 
soul ;  that  communion  with  God  was  severed.  But  this  terrible 
fact,  that  any  sin  is  mortal  to  the  spiritual  life  of  the  soul,  may 
profitably  be  farther  illustrated. 

Note,  that  God's  perfections  necessitate   that   He  shall  be 

the  righteous  enemy  and  punisher  of  trans- 
b/o7e  SinT""'''^  ^°''    gression.      Man,  as  a    moral  and   intelligent 

being,  must  have  conscience  and  moral  emo- 
tions. One  inevitable  effect  of  the  first  sin,  then,  must  be  that 
God  is  made  righteously  angry,  and  will  feel  the  prompting  to 
just  punishment.  (Else  not  a  holy  ruler!)  Hence,  He  must  at 
once  withdraw  His  favour  and  communion  (there  being  no  Me- 
diator to  satisfy  His  justice.)  Another  inevitable  efiect  must 
be,  the  birth  of  remorse  in  the  creature.     The  hitherto  healthy 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  313 

action  of  conscience  must  ensure  this.  This  remorse  must  be 
attended  with  an  apprehension  of  God's  anger,  and  fear  of  His 
punishment.  But  human  nature  ahvays  reciprocates,  by  a  sort 
of  sympathy,  the  hostihty  of  which  it  knows  itself  the  object. 
How  many  a  man  has  learned  to  hate  an  inoffensive  neighbour, 
because  he  knows  that  he  has  given  that  neighbour  good  cause 
to  hate  him  ?  But  this  hostility  is  hostility  to  God  for  doing 
what  He  ought ;  it  is  hostility  to  righteousness  !  So  that,  in 
the  first  clearly  pronounced  sin,  these  elements  of  corruption 
and  separation  from  God  are  necessarily  contained  in  germ. 
But  God  is  the  model  of  excellence,  and  fountain  of  grace. 
See  how  fully  these  results  are  illustrated  in  Adam  and  Eve. 
Gen.  iii :  8,  &c.  Next ;  every  moral  act  has  some  tendency  to 
foster  the  propensity  which  it  indulges.  Do  you  say  it  must  be 
a  very  slight  strength  produced  by  one  act ;  a  very  hght  bond 
of  habit,  consisting  of  one  strand  !  Not  always.  But  the  scale, 
if  slightly  turned,  is  turned  :  the  downhill  career  is  begun,  by  at 
least  one  step,  and  the  increase  of  momentum  wiU  surely  occur, 
though  gradually.  Inordinate  self-love  has  now  become  a  prin- 
ciple of  action,  and  it  it  will  go  on  to  assert  its  dominion.  Last, 
we  must  consider  the  effects  of  physical  evil  on  a  heart  thus  in 
incipient  perversion  ;  for  God's  justice  must  prompt  Him  to  in- 
flict the  bodily  evils  due  to  the  sin.  Desire  of  happiness  is 
instinctive ;  when  the  joys  of  innocence  are  lost,  an  indemnifi- 
cation and  substitute  will  be  sought  in  carnal  pleasures.  Misery 
developes  the  malignant  passions  of  envy,  petulance,  impatience, 
selfishness,  revenge.  And  nothing  is  more  depraving  than  de- 
spair.    See  Jer.  ii :  25  ;  xviii :  12. 

What  a  terrible  evil,  then,  is  Sin  !  Thus  the  sentence,  "  In 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  carried  its 
own  execution.     Sin,  of  itself,  kills  the  spiritual  life  of  the  soul. 

The  true  tempter  of  Adam  and  Eve  was  undoubtedly  the 

evil  angel  Satan,  although  it  is  not  expressly 

3.  Satan  the  Tempter.  ^^.^  ^^  -^  ^^^  narrative.     A  serpent  has  no 

speech,  still  less  has  it  understanding  to  comprehend  man's 
moral  relations  and  interests,  and  that  refined  spiritual  malice 
which  would  plan  the  ruin  of  the  soul.  It  is  said,  "  the  serpent 
was  more  subtle  than  any  beast  of  the  field,"  as  though  this 
natural  superiority  of  animal  instincts  were  what  enabled  it  to 
do  the  work.  A  moment's  thought,  however,  must  convince  us 
that  there  is  a  deeper  meaning.  Moses,  speaking  for  the  time 
as  the  mere  historian,  describes  events  as  they  appeared  to  Eve. 
The  well  known  cunning  of  the  serpent  adapted  it  better  for 
Satan's  use,  and  enabled  him  to  conceal  himself  under  it  with 
less  chance  of  detection.  The  grounds  for  regarding  Satan  as 
the  true  agent  are  the  obvious  allusions  of  Scripture.  See  Jno. 
viii:  44;  2  Cor.  xi :  3  ;  1  Thess.  iii :  5  ;  i  Jno.  iii:  8;  Rev.  xii  : 
■9,  and  XX :  2.  The  doom  of  the  serpent  is  also  allusively  applied 
to    Christ's    triumph    over    Satan.     Col.  ii:    15;  Rom.  xvi :  20 ; 


314  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Heb.  ii :  14;  Is.  Ixv  :  25.  It  is  also  stated  in  confirmation,  by 
Dr.  Hill,  that  this  was  the  traditionary  interpretration  of  the 
Jews,  as  is  indicated,  for  instance,  in  Wis.  ii :  23,  24;  Ecclus. 
XXV :  24,  and  the  Chaldee  paraphrast  on  Job  xx:  4,  6.  Turret- 
tin  supposes  that  God's  providence  permitted  the  employment 
of  an  animal  as  the  instrument  of  Satan's  temptation,  in  order 
that  mankind  might  have  before  them  a  visible  commemoration 
of  their  sin  and  fall. 

I  propose  to  state  the  Pelagian  theory  with  some  degree  of 
4.  Effect  of  Adam's     fulness,  and  more  methodically  than  it  would 
Sin  on  His  Posterity—    perhaps  be  found  Stated  in  the  writings  of  its 
Pelagian  Theory.  ^^^j^  early  advocates,    in  order  to  unfold  to 

the  student  the  nexus  between  original  sin  and  the  whole  plan 
of  redemption.  The  Pelagian  believes  that  Adam's  fall  did  not 
directly  affect  his  posterity  at  all.  Infants  are  born  in  the  same 
state  in  which  Adam  was  created,  one  of  innocence,  but  not  of 
positive  righteousness.  There  was  no  federal  transaction,  and 
no  imputation,  which  is,  in  every  case,  incompatible  with  justice. 
There  is  no  propagation  of  hereditar}^  depravity,  which  would 
imply  the  generation  of  souls  ex  traduce,  which  they  reject,  j^ytA^ 
Man's  will  is  not  only  free  from  coaction,  but  from  moral  cer-"^l  (yvk 
tainty,  i.  e.,  his  volitions  are  not  only  free,  but  not  decisively 
caused,  otherwise  he  would  not  be  a  free  agent. 

(b.)  If  this  is  so,  whence  the  universal  actual  transgression 
of  adult  man  ?  Pelagianism  answers,  from  concupiscence,  which 
exists  in  all,  as  in  Adam  before  his  sin,  and  is  not  sin  of  itself, 
and  from  general  evil  example. 

(c.)  If  man  has  no  moral  character,  and  no  guilt  prior  to 
intelligent  choice,  whence  death  and  suffering  among  those  who 
have  not  sinned  ?  They  are  obliged  to  answer  :  These  natural 
evils  are  not  penal,  and  would  have  befallen  Adam  had  he  not 
sinned.  They  are  the  natural  limitations  of  humanity,  just  as 
irrationality  is  of  beasts,  and  no  more  imply  guilt  as  their  neces- 
sary cause. 

(d.)  Those,  then,  who  die  in  infancy,  have  nothing  from 
which  they  need  to  be  redeemed.  Why  then  baptized  ?  Pela- 
gianism answered,  those  who  die  in  infancy  are  redeemed  from 
nothing.  If  they  die  unbaptized,  they  would  go  to  a  state 
called  Paradise,  the  state  of  natural  good,'  proceeding  from 
natural  innocence,  to  which  innocent  Pagans  go.  But  baptism 
would  interest  them  in  Christ's  gracious  purchase,  and  thus  they 
would  inherit,  should  they  die  in  infancy,  a  more  positive  and 
assured   state  of  blessedness,  called  the   Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

(e.)  All  men  being  born  innocent,  and  with  equilibrium  of 
will,  it  is  both  physically  and  morally  possible  that  any  man 
might  act  a  holy  character,  and  attain  Paradise,  or  "  eternal 
life,"  without  any  gospel  grace  whatever.  The  chances  may  be 
bad,  on  account  of  unfavourable  example,  and  temptation, 
amidst  which  the  experiment  has  to  be  made.     But  there  have 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  315 

been  cases,  both  under  the  revealed  law,  as  Enoch,  Job,  Abel, 
Noah  (who  had  no  protevangeluini) ;  and  among  Pagans,  as 
Numa,  Aristides,  Socrates  ;  and  there  may  be  such  cases  again. 
Nor  would  God  be  just  to  punish  man  for  coming  short  of  per- 
fection unless  this  were  so. 

(f.)  Now,  as  to  the  theory  of  redemption  :  As  there  can  be 
no  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  his  people,  so  neither  could 
there  be  of  Christ's  people's  guilt  to  Him,  or  of  His  righteous-  ^ 
ness  to  them.  But  sins  are  forgiven  by  the  mercy  of  God  in  1^ 
Christ  (without  penal  satisfaction  for  them),  on  the  condition  of 
trust,  repentance,  and  reformation.  The  title  of  the  believer  to  g^^ 
a  complete  justification  must  then  be  his  own  obedience,  and./^-^ 
that  a  sinless  one.  But  this  is  not  so  exalted  an  attainment  as 
Calvinists  now  regard  it.  Concupiscence  is  not  sin.  Moral 
quality  attaches  only  to  actual  volitions,  not  to  states  of  feeling 
prompting  thereto  ;  and  hence,  if  an  act  be  formally  right,  it  is 
wholly  right ;  nor  does  a  mixture  of  selfish  and  unselfish  motives 
in  it  make  it  imperfectly  moral ;  for  volition  is  necessarily  a 
thing  decisive  and  entire.  Henoe,  a  prevalent,  uniform  obedi- 
ence is  a  perfect  one  ;  and  none  less  will  justify,  because  justifi- 
cation is  by  works,  and  the  law  is  perfect.  But  as  equilibrium 
of  will  is  essential  to  responsibility,  any  shortcoming  which  is 
morally  necessitated,  by  infirmity  of  nature,  or  ignorance, 
thoughtlessness,  or  overwhelming  gust  of  temptation,  contrary 
to  the  soul's  prevalent  bent,  is  no  sin  at  all.  See  here,  the 
germ  of  the  Wesleyan's  doctrine  of  sinless  perfection,  and  of 
the  Jesuit  theory  of  morals. 

Since  a  concreated  righteousness  would  be  no  righteous- 
ness, not  being  chosen  at  first,  so  neither  would  a  righteousness 
wrought  by  a  supernatural  regeneration.  The  only  gracious 
influences  possible  are  those  of  co-operative  grace,  or  moral 
suasion.  Man's  regeneration  is  simply  his  own  change  of  pur- 
pose, as  to  sin  and  holiness,  influenced  by  motives.  Hence, 
faith  and  repentance  are  both  natural  exercises. 

(g.)  The  continuance  of  a  soul  in  a  state  of  justification  is 
of  course  contingent.  A  grace  which  would  morally  necessi- 
tate the  will  to  continued  holy  choices,  would  deprive  it  of  its 
free  agency. 

(h.)  God's  purpose  of  election,  therefore,  while  from  eter- 
nity, as  is  shown  by  His  infinite  and  immutable  wisdom,  knowl- 
edge and  power,  is  conditioned  on  His  foresight  of  the  way 
men  would  improve  their  free  will.  He  elected  those  He  fore- 
saw would  persevere  in  good. 

The  whole  is  a  consistent  and  well-knit  system  of  error, 
proceeding  from  its  -jionov  (/'sboo:;. 

Among  those  who  pass  under  the  general  term,  Arminians, 

two  different  schemes  have  been  advanced ; 

i.iZer!''  '^^'°"''-    one    represented   by    Whitby,  the    other  by 

Wesley  and  his   Church.     The  former  admit 


3l6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

that  Adam  and  his  race  were  both  much  injured  by  the  fall.  He 
has  not  mdeed  lost  his  equilibrium  of  will  for  spiritual  good,  but 
he  has  become  greatly  alienated  from  God,  has  fallen  under  the 
penal  curse  of  physical  evil  and  death,  has  become  more  ani- 
mal, so  that  concupiscence  is  greatly  exasperated,  and  is  more 
prone  to  break  out  into  actual  transgression.  This  is  greatly 
increased  by  the  miseries,  fear,  remorse,  and  vexation  of  his 
mortal  state,  which  tend  to  drive  him  away  from  God,  and  to 
whet  the'  envious,  sensual  and  discontented  emotions.  These 
influences,  together  with  constant  evil  example,  are  the  solution 
of  the  fact,  that  all  men  become  practically  sinners.  This  is 
the  state  to  which  Adam  reduced  himself;  and  his  posterity 
share  it,  not  in  virtue  of  any  federal  relation,  or  imputation  of 
Adam's  guilt,  but  of  that  universal,  physical  law,  that  like  must 
generate  like.     In  that  sense,  man  is  bOrn  a  ruined  creature. 

The  Wesleyans,  however,   begin    by  admitting  all  that  a 
„,   ,  Moderate    Calvinist  would  ask,  as  to  Adam's 

loss  of  original  righteousness  in  the  Fall, 
bondage  under  evil  desires,  and  total  depravity.  While  they 
misinterpret,  and  then  reject  the  question  between  mediate  and 
immediate  imputation,  they  retain  the  orthodox  idea  of  impu- 
tation, admitting  that  the  legal  consequences  of  Adam's  act  are 
visited  upon  his  descendants  along  with  himself.  But  then,  they 
say,  the  objections  of  severity  and  unrighteousness  urged  against 
this  plan  could  not  be  met,  unless  it  be  considered  as  one 
whole,  embracing  man's  gracious  connection  with  the  second 
Adam.  By  the  Covenant  of  grace  in  Him,  the  self-determining 
power  of  the  will,  and  ability  of  will  are  purchased  back  for 
every  member  of  the  human  family,  and  actually  communi- 
cated, by  common  sufficient  grace,  to  all,  so  far  repairing  the 
effects  of  the  fall,  that  man  has  moral  ability  for  spiritual  good, 
if  he  chooses  to  employ  it.  Thus,  while  they  give  us  the  true 
doctrine  with  one  hand,  they  take  it  back  with  the  other,  and 
reach  a  semi-Pelagian  result.  The  obvious  objection  to  this 
scheme  is,  that  if  the  effects  of  Adam's  fall  on  his  posterity  are 
such,  that  they  would  have  been  unjust,  if  not  repaired  by  a 
redeeming  plan  which  was  to  follow  it,  as  a  part  of  the  same 
system,  then  God's  act  in  giving  a  Redeemer  was  not  one  of 
pure  grace  (as  Scripture  everywhere  says),  but  He  was  under 
obligations  to  do  some  such  thing. 

The  view   of  the  Calvinists  I  purpose  now  to  state   in  that 

„  ,  .  .  .        .  comprehensive   and  natural  mode,   in  which 

Calvinistic      theory.        ,,  ,^,..  ^        ,. 

ail  sound   Lalvmists  would  concur.     Lookmg 

into  the  Bible  and  the  actual  world,  we  find  that,  whefeas  Adam 

was  created  righteous,  and  with  full  ability  of  will  for  all  good, 

and  was  in  a  state  of  actual  blessedness  ;  ever  since  his  fall, 

his    posterity    begin    their    existence    in    a    far  different    state. 

They  all  show,  universal   ungodliness,  clearly  proving  a  native, 

prevalent,    and    universal    tendency  thereto.      They    are   born 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  317 

spiritually  dead,  as  Adam  made  himself.  And  they  are  obvi- 
ously, natural  heirs  of  the  physical  evils  and  death  pronounced 
on  him  for  his  sin.  Such  are  the  grand  facts.  Now  Calvin- 
ists  consider  that  it  is  no  unauthorized  hypothesis,  but  merely 
a  connected  statement,  and  inevitable  interpretation  of  the 
facts,  to  say :  that  we  see  in  them  this  arrangement ;  God  was 
pleased,  for  wise,  gracious,  and  righteous  reasons,  to  connect  the 
destiny  of  Adam's  posterity  with  his  probationary  acts,  so  making 
him  their  representative,  that  whatever  moral,  and  whatever  legal 
condition  he  procured  for  himself  by  his  conduct  under  proba- 
tion ;  in  that  same  moral  and  that  same  legal  condition  his  pos- 
terity should  begin  to  exist.  And  this,  we  say,  is  no  more  than 
the  explanation  necessarily  implied  in  the  facts  themselves. 

But   before  we  proceed  to  the  detailed   discussion  of  this, 
an  inquiry,  a  subject  of  the  greatest  intricacy 

5.  Orimn  of    Souls.  a   ■.  .  ■  i-      •  tj  • 

History  of  opinions.  ^^^  mterest,  arises  as  a  jorelunmary  :  How  is 
this  connection  transmitted ;  what  is  the 
actual  tie  of  nature  between  parents  and  children,  as  to  their 
more  essential  part,  the  soul  ?  Are  human  souls  generated  by 
their  parents  naturally?  Or  are  they  created  directly  by  God, 
and  sent  into  connection  with  the  young  body  at  the  time  it 
acquires  its  separate  vitality  ?  The  former  has  been  called  the 
theory  of  Traducianism ;  [ew  traduce^  the  latter,  of  creation. 
After  Origen's  doctrine  of  pre-existent  human  souls  had  been 
generally  surrendered  as  heretical  (from  the  times  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  say  403,)  the  question  was  studied  with  much  interest  in 
the  early  Church.  Tertullian,  who  seems  first  to  have  formally 
stated  Adam's  federal  headship,  was  also  the  advocate  of  the 
ex  traduce  theory.  But  it  found  few  advocates  among  the  Fath- 
ers, and  was  especially  opposed,  by  those  who  had  strong  ten- 
dencies to  what  was  afterwards  called  Pelagianism,  as  favouring 
original  sin.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  seems  to  have  been  almost 
alone  among  the  prominent  Greek  Fathers  who  held  it.  So 
perhaps  did  Ambrose  among  the  Latins ;  but  when  Jerome 
asserts  that  the  ex  traduce  view  prevailed  generally  among  the 
Western  Christians,  he  was  probably  in  error.  Augustine,  the 
great  establisher  of  Original  Sin,  professed  himself  undecided- 
about  it,  to  the  end.  It  may  be  said  however,  in  general,  that 
in  history,  the  ex  ti'aduce  theory  has  been  thought  more  favour- 
able to  original  sin,  and  has  been  usually  connected  with  it,  till 
modern  times  ;  while  Creationism  was  strenuously  advocated  by 
Pelagians.  If  the  Traducian  theory  can  be  substantiated,  it  most 
obviously  presents  the  best  explanation  of  the  propagation  of  sin. 

I  shall  state  the  usual  arguments, /w  and  con,  indicating  as 
I  go  along  my  judgment  of  their  force. 

I.  The  Traducianists  assert  that  by  some  inexplicable  law 

Aro-uments  of  Tra-    ^^  generation,  though  a  true  and  proper  one, 

ducianists  —  From    parents  propagate  souls,  as  truly  as   bodies  ; 

Scripture.  ^^^  ^j.^  \}a\xs,  the  proper  parents  of  the  whole 


3l8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

persons  of  their  children.  They  argue,  from  Scripture,  that 
Gen.  ii  :  2  states,  "  on  the  seventh  day  God  ended  the  work 
which  He  had  made,  and  He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from 
all  His  work,"  &c.  Hence,  they  infer,  God  performs  since,  no 
proper  work  of  immediate  creation  in  this  earth.  This  seems 
hardly  valid  ;  for  the  sense  of  the  the  text  might  seem  satisfied 
by  the  idea,  that  God  now  creates  nothing  new  as  to  species. 
With  a  great  deal  more  force,  it  is  argued  that  in  Gen.  i  :  25- 
28,  God  creates  man  in  His  own  image,  after  His  own  likeness, 
which  image  is  proved  to  be  not  corporeal  at  all,  but  in  man's 
spirituality,  intelligence,  immortality,  and  righteousness.  In 
Gen.  V  :  3,  "  Adam  begat  a  son  in  his  own  Hkeness,  after  his 
image."  How  could  this  be,  if  Adam's  parental  agency  did 
not  produce  the  soul,  in  which  alone  this  image  inheres  ? 
Surely  the  image  and  likeness  is  in  the  same  aspects.  See  also 
Ps.  li :  5  ;  Job,  xiv:4,;  Jno.  iii:6,  &c.  The  purity  or  impurity 
spoken  of  in  all  these  passages  is  of  the  soul,  and  they  must 
therefore  imply  the  propagation  of  souls,  when  so  expressly 
stating  the  propagation  of  impurity  of  soul. 

They  also  argue  that  popular  opinion  and  common  sense 

clearly  regard   the  parents   as  parents  of  the 
and"!  topLtor    whole  person.     The  same  thing  is  shown  by 

the  inheritance  of  mental  peculiarities  and 
family  traits,  which  are  often  as  marked  as  bodily.  And  this 
cannot  be  accounted  for  by  education,  because  often  seen  where 
the  parents  did  not  live  to  rear  the  child  ;  nor  by  the  fact  that 
the  body  with  its  animal  appetites,  in  which  the  soul  is  encased, 
may  be  the  true  cause  of  the  apparent  hereditary  likeness  of 
souls  ;  for  the  just  theory  is,  that  souls  influence  bodies  in  these 
things,  not  bodies  souls ;  and  besides,  the  traits  of  resemblance 
are  often  not  only  passional,  but  intellectual.  Instances  of  con- 
genital lunacy  suggest  the  same  argument.  Lunacy  is  plausi- 
bly explained  as  a  loss  of  balance  of  soul,  through  the  undue 
predominance  of  some  one  trait.  Now,  these  cases  of  congen- 
ital lunacy  are  most  frequently  found  in  the  offspring  of  cous- 
ins. The  resemblance  of  traits  in  the  parents  being  already 
■great,  ''breeding  in  and  in  "  makes  the  family  trait  too  strong, 
and  hence  derangement.  But  the  chief  arguments  from  reason 
are :  if  God  creates  souls,  as  immediately  as  He  created  Adam's 
or  Gabriel,  then  they  must  have  come  from  His  hand  morally 
pure,  for  God  cannot  create  wickedness.  How,  then,  can  de- 
pravity be  propagated  ?  The  Bible  would  be  contradicted,  which 
so  clearly  speaks  of  it  as  propagated  ;  and  reason,  which  says  that 
the  attachment  of  a  holy  soul  to  a  body  cannot  defile  it,  because 
a  mere  body  has  no  moral  character.  Creationists  answer :  the 
federal  relation  instituted  between  Adam  and  the  race,  justifies 
God  in  ordaining  it  so  that  the  connection  of  the  young,  im- 
mortal spirit  with  the  body,  and  thus  with  a  depraved  race, 
shall  be  the    occasion    for  its  depravation,  in  consequence  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY. 


319 


imputed  sin.  But  tlie  reply  is,  first,  it  is  impossible  to  explain 
the  federal  relation,  if  the  soul  of  each  child  (the  soul  alone  is 
the  true  moral  agent),  had  an  antecedent  holy  existence,  inde- 
pendent of  a  human  father.  Why  is  not  that  soul  as  independ- 
ent of  Adam's  fall,  thus  far,  as  Gabriel  was ;  and  why  is  not  the 
arrangement,  which  implicates  him  in  it,  just  as  arbritary  as 
though  Gabriel  were  tied  to  Adam's  fate  ?  Moreover,  if  God's 
act  in  plunging  this  pure  spirit  into  an  impure  body  is  the  im- 
mediate occasion  of  its  becoming  depraved,  it  comes  very 
near  to  making  God  the  author  of  its  fall.  Last :  a  mere  body  ,^ 
has  no  moral  character,  and  to  suppose  it  taints  the  soul  is  mere    /)  .^ 

Gnosticism.     Hence,  it   must  be  that  the  souls  of  children  are  - 

the  offsprings  of  their  parents.  The  mode  of  that  propagation 
is  inscrutable  ;  but  this  constitutes  no  disproof,  because  a  hun- 
dred other  indisputable  operations  natural  of  law  are  equally 
inscrutable ;  and  especially  in  this  case  of  spirits,  where  the 
nature  of  the  substance  is  inscrutable,  we  should  expect  the 
manner  of  its  production  to  be  so. 

2.   On  the  other  hand,  the  advocates  of  creation  of  souls 

argue  from    such  texts    as    Eccl.  xii  :  7  ;   Is. 
■ationitr^'^  ^  °       ^^"    ^^^^  •  ^^  5  Zech.  xii  :  I  ;  Heb.  xii  :  9,  where  our 

souls  are  spoken  of  as  the  special  work  of 
God.  It  is  replied,  and  the  reply  seems  to  me  sufficient,  that 
the  language  of  these  passages  is  sufficiently  met,  by  recogniz- 
ing the  fact  that  God's  power  at  first  produced  man's  soul  im- 
mediately out  of  nothing,  and  in  His  own  image  ;  that  the 
continued  propagation  of  these  souls  is  under  laws  which  His 
Providence  sustains  and  directs  ;  and  that  this  agency  of  God 
is  claimed  as  an  especial  honour,  (e.  g.  in  Is.  Ivii  :  16,)  because 
human  souls  are  the  most  noble  part  of  God's  earthly  kingdom, 
being  intelligent,  moral,  and  capable  of  apprehending  His 
glory.  That  this  is  the  true  sense  of  Eccl.  xii  :  7,  and  that  it 
should  not  be  strained  any  higher,  appears  thus :  if  the  lan- 
guage proves  that  the  soul  of  a  man  of  our  generation  came 
immediately  from  God's  hand,  like  Adam's,  the  antithesis  would 
equally  prove  that  our  bodies  came  equally  from  the  dust,  as 
immediately  as  Adam's.  To  all  such  passages  as  Is.  Ivii  :  16; 
Zech.  xii  :  i,  the  above  general  considerations  apply,  and  in 
addition,  these  facts  :  Our  parents  are  often  spoken  of  in  Scrip- 
ture as  authors  of  our  existence  likewise ;  and  that  in  general 
terms,  inclusive  of  the  spirit.  Gen.  xlvi  :  26,  27  ;  Prov.  xvii : 
21  ;  xxiii  :  24;  Is.  xlv :  10.  Surely,  if  one  of  these  classes  of 
texts  may  be  so  strained,  the  other  may  equally,  and  then  we 
have  texts  directly  contradicting  texts.  Again,  God  is  called 
the  Creator  of  the  animals,  Ps.  civ  :  30,  and  the  adorner  of  the 
lilies.  Matt,  vi  :  30 ;  which  are  notoriously  produced  by  propa- 
gation. In  Heb.  xii  :  9,  the  pronoun  in  "  Father  of  our  spirits," 
is  unauthorized.  The  meaning  is  simply  the  contrast  between 
the  general  ideas  of  "  earthly  fathers,"  and  "  heavenly  father." 


320  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

For  if  you  make  the  latter  clause,  "Father  of  spirits"  mean 
Creator  of  our  souls,  then,  by  antithesis,  the  former  should  be 
read,  fathers  of  our  bodies ;  but  this  neither  the  apostle's  scope 
permits,  nor  the  word  adn^  which  does  not  usually  mean,  in  his 
language,  our  bodies  .as  opposed  to  our  souls  ;  but  our  natural, 
as  opposed  to  our  gracious  condition  of  soul. 

Again  :  Turrettin  objects,  that  if  Adam's  soul  was  created, 
and  our's  propagated,  we  do  not  properly  bear  his  image,  i 
Cor.  XV  :  49,  nor  are  of  his  species.  The  obvious  answer  is, 
that  by  the  same  argument  we  could  not  be  of  the  same  cor- 
poreal species  at  all !  Further,  the  very  idea  of  species  is  a 
propagated  identity  of  nature.  But  the  strongest  rational  ob- 
jections are,  that  a  generative  process  implies  the  separation  of 
parts  of  the  parent  substances,  and  their  aggregation  into  a 
new  organism ;  whereas  the  souls  of  the  parents,  and  that  of 
the  offspring  are  alike  monads,  indiscerptible,  and  uncom- 
pounded.  Traducianism  is  therefore  vehemently  accused  of 
materialist  tendencies.  It  seems  to  me  that  all  this  is  but  an 
argunientimi  ad  ignorantiam.  Of  course,  spirits  cannot  be  gen- 
erated by  separation  of  substance  and  new  compoundings. 
But  whether  processes  of  propagation  may  not  be  possible  for 
spiritual  substance  which  involve  none  of  this,  is  the  very  ques- 
tion, which  can  be  neither  proved  nor  disproved  by  us,  because 
we  do  not  comprehend  the  true  substance  of  spirit. 

The  opponents  might  have  advanced  a    more  formidable 
^  ^  objection   against  Traducianism  :  and  this  is 

Gravest      Obiection     ,i         ,  j-S;       li.  r  i.i.       i.i  t 

against  Traducianism.  the  true  difficulty  of  the  theory.  In  every 
case  of  the  generation  of  organisms,  there  is 
no  production  of  any  really  new  substance  by  the  creature- 
^  parents,  but  only  a  reorganizing  of  pre-existent  particles.  But 
we  believe  a  soul  is  a  spiritual  atom,  and  is  brought  into  exist- 
ence out  of  non-existence.  Have  human  parents  this  highest 
creative  power?  With  such  difficulties  besetting  both  sides,  it  ,  , 
will  be  best  perhaps,  to  leave  the  subject  as  an  insoluble  mys-/^^' 
tery.  What  an  opprobrium  to  the  pride  of  human  philosophy, 
that  it  should  be  unable  to  answer  the  very  first  and  nearest 
question  as  to  its  own  origin  ! 

The  humble  mind  may  perhaps  find  its  satisfaction  in  this 
Bible  truth :  That  whatever  may  be  the  adjustment  adopted  for 
the  respective  shares  of  agency  which  the  First  Cause  and 
second  causes  have  in  the  origin  of  an  immortal,  human  soul ; 
this  fact  is  certain  (however  unexplained)  that  parents  and  chil- 
dren are  somehow  united  into  one  federal  body  by  a  true  tie  of 
race :  that  the  tie  does  include  the  spiritual  as  well  as  the  bod- 
ily substances :  that  it  is  bo7ia  fide,  and  not  fictitious  or  sup- 
posititious. See  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  vi,  §  3.  "  Root  of  all 
mankind."  Now,  since  we  have  no  real  cognition  by  percep- 
tion, of  spiritual  substance,  but  only  know  its  acts  and  effects, 
we    should  not  be    surprised    at  our  ignorance  of  the  precise 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  32 1 

agency  of  its  production,  and  the  way  that  agency  acts.  It 
may  not  be  explained;  and  yet  it  may  be  true,  that  divine 
power,  (in  bringing  substance  out  of  nihil  into  esse)  and  human 
causation  may  both  act,  in  originating  the  being  and  properties 
of  the  infant's  soul ! 

]\Iay  not  this  insoluble  question  again  teach  us  to  appre- 
hend a  great  truth,  which  we  are  incompetent  to  comprehend ; 
that  there  is  such  a  reality  as  spiritual  generation,  instanced  in 
the  eternal  generation  of  the  Word,  in  the  infinite  Spirit,  and 
in  the  generation  of  human  souls  from  the  finite  ?  The  analogy 
must,  indeed  be  partial,  the  lower  instance  being  beneath  the 
higher,  as  the  heavens  are  lower  than  the  earth.  In  the  eternal 
generation,  the  generative  spirit  was  sole  ;  in  the  human,  the 
parents  are  dual.  In  the  former,  the  subsistence  produced  was 
not  an  individual  numerically  distinct  from  the  producer,  as  in 
the  latter.  But  it  may  be  added,  that  familiar  and  fundamental 
as  is  our  notion  of  our  race  unity,  we  know  only  in  part  what  is 
connoted  in  it.  It  is  possible  that  when  "  we  know  even  as  also 
we  are  known,"  we  shall  find,  that  Adam's  creation  "  in  the  image 
and  likeness "  of  God  has  still  another  meaning,  not  appre- 
hended before  ;  in  that  omnipotence  endued  man  with  a  lower,  ^ 
though  inscrutable  form  of  that  power  by  which  the  eternal 
Father  forever  generates  the  eternal  Son. 


LECTUHE  XXVJII. 

ORIGINAL  SIN.  — Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

6.  What  is  Original  Sin?     \Vliat  is  meant  by  total  depravity?     And  does  it  affect 
the  whole  man,  in  all  faculties  and  capacities? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  6.  \  3.  Cat.  Qu.  18.  Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  8,  10,  11. 
Dick,  Lect.  46,  47.  Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  i.  Watson,  Theo.  Inst.,  ch.  18.  Thom- 
well,  Lect.  17.  • 

7.  How  is  the  existence  of  this  total  depravity  proved,  (a)  from  facts;   (b)  from 
Scripture  ?     Are  any  of  the  secular  virtues  of  the  unrenewed  genuine  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  10.  Dick  and  Hill  as  above.  Edwards  on  Original  Sin,  pt.  i, 
ch.  I,  2,  pt.  ii,  ch.  2,  3,  pt.  iii,  ch.  i.  2.  Muller,  Chr.  Doc.  of  Sin,  bk.  iv,  ch. 
I,  2.     Dorner's  History  of  Protestant  Theology,  Vol.  i,  §  2,  ch.  i. 

8.  Define    and   prove    the    imputation    of   the   guilt   of  Adam's   first  sin  to  his 
posterity. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  9,  12,  15.  Dick  and  Hill  as  above.  Edwards  on  Orig.  Sin., 
pt.  ii,  ch.  I.  4,  pt.  iii,  ch.  I,  3.  Wines'  "Adam  and  Christ."  Dr.  Wm.  Cun- 
ningham's Hist.  Theol.,  ch.  19,  \  2.  Knapp,  \  76.  Watson  as  above.  Cal- 
vin and  Hodge  on  Rom.  5th. 

/C  "  THE  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell,  con- 
sists  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  orig- 
inal righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  his  whole  nature, 
which  is  commonly  called  original  sin ;  together  with  all  actual 
transgressions  which  proceed  from  it," 


322  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Here,  as  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  Original  Sin  (so  called 
because  native,  and  because  the  fountain  of  all  other  sin)  is  the 
general  term,  expressing  both  elements,  of  imputed  guilt  and 
total  depravity.  By  many  theologians  it  is  often  used  for  the 
latter  specially.     I  discuss  the  latter  first. 

Turrettin  asserts  that  this  total  depravity  is  not  merely  or 
negatively  a  carentia  jnstitice  oiiginalis  but 
tiv?bfnrtowronT"  Positively,  an  active  principle  of  evil.  But 
this  does  not  contradict  the  definition  which 
represented  the  essence  of  sin  as  discrepancy  from  law.  The 
essential  nature  of  virtue  is,  that  it  positively  or  affirmatively 
requires  something ;  or  makes  a  given  state  or  act  positively 
obligatory  on  the  human  heart.  It  admits  no  moral  neutrality  ; 
so  that  the  simply  not  being,  or  not  doing  what  God  requires, 
is  Sin.  But  the  soul  is  essentially  active.  Hence,  it  follows, 
that  in  a  sinful  state  or  act,  the  action  or  positivity  of  the  sin  is 
from  the  essential  nature  of  the  soul,  its  wrongness  is  from  the 
mere  absence  of  conformity  to  law.  Depravity,  as  Pres. 
Edwards  says,  is  a  defective  or  privative  quality  ;  yet  it  assumes 
a  positive  form.  I  would  prefer  to  say  that  depravity  is  active 
as  opposed  to  simple  negation.  That  it  is  active,  is  proved  by 
Turrettin  from  those  texts  which  attribute  effects  to  it,  as  bind- 
ing, deceiving,  and  slaying  &c.  Yet  it  is  also  important  to  dis- 
tinguish that  it  is,  in  its  origin,  privative,  and  not  the  infusion 
of  some  positive  quality  of  evil  into  the  soul  ;  in  order  to 
acquit  God  of  the  charge  of  being  author  of  sin.  The  Bible 
term,  kiijia-io.,  suggests  the  arrow  swerving  from  its  proper  target. 
The  swerving  is  privative.  But  this  arrow  does  not  stand  still, 
or  lie  in  the  quiver ;  it  flies,  and  perhaps  with  as  much  momen- 
tum and  velocity,  as  the  arrow  which  hits  the  mark. 

The  same  reason  compels  us  to  believe  that  native  deprav- 
ity is  not  a  substantial  corruption  of  the  soul ; 
But  not  a  corruption     •  j  ,      i  i      ,  ,      r 

ofthe  Soul's  substance.    ^-  6-,  does   not  change  or  destroy  any  part  of 

its  substance.  For  souls  are,  as  to  their  sub- 
stance, what  God  made  them  ;  and  His  perfections  ensure  His 
not  making  anything  that  was  not  good.  Nor  is  there  any  loss 
of  any  of  the  capacities  or  faculties,  which  make  up  the  essen- 
tia of  the  soul.  Man  is,  in  these  respects,  essentially  what  his 
Creator  made  him.  Hence  depravity  is,  in  the  language  of 
metaphysics,  not  an  attribute,  but  accidens  of  the  human  soul 
now.  This  is  further  proved  by  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ 
assumed  our  very  nature,  at  His  incarnation,  without  which  He 
would  not  be  our  Mediator.  But  surely.  He  did  not  assume 
moral  corruption  !  Last :  Scripture  clearly  distinguishes  be- 
tween sin  and  the  soul,  when  they  speak  of  it  as  defiling  the 
soul,  as  easily  besetting;  Heb.  xii  :  i,  2,  &c.  If  it  be  asked, 
what  then,  is  native  depravity  :  if  it  be  neither  a  faculty,  nor  the 
privation  of  one,  nor  of  the  man's  essence,  nor  a  change  of  sub- 
stance ?  I    reply,  it  is  a  vicious  habitus  which   qualifies  man's 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  323 

active  powers,  i.  e.,  his  capacities  of  feeling  and  will.  Although 
we  may  not  be  able  to  fully  describe,  yet  we  all  know  this  idea 
of  bents  which  naturally  qualify  the  powers  of  action  in  all 
things. 

The   Confession  states  that  the  first  man  "  became  wholly 
.  defiled,  in  all  the  faculties  and   parts  of  soul 

and  body."  The  seat  of  this  vicious  moral 
habitus  is,  of  course,  strictly  speaking,  in  the  moral  propensi- 
ties. But  since  these  give  active  direction  to  all  the  faculties 
and  parts  of  soul  and  body,  in  actions  that  have  any  moral 
quality,  it  may  be  said  that,  by  accommodation  of  language, 
they  are  all  morally  defiled.  The  conscience  (the  highest  de- 
partment of  rational  intuitions)  is  not  indeed  destroyed  ;  but 
its  accuracy  of  verdict  is  greatly  disturbed  by  evil  desire,  and 
the  instinctive  moral  emotions  which  should  accompany  those 
verdicts,  are  so  seared  by  neglect,  as  to  seem  practically 
feeble,  or  dead,  for  the  time.  The  views  of  the  understanding 
concerning  all  moral  subjects  are  perverted  by  the  wrong  pro- 
pensions  of  the  heart,  so  as  to  call  good  evil,  and  evil  good. 
Thus  "  blindness  of  mind  "  on  all  moral  subjects  results.  The 
memory  becomes  a  store  of  corrupt  images  and  recollections, 
and  thus  furnishes  material  for  the  imagination  ;  defiling  both. 
The  corporeal  appetites,  being  stimulated  by  the  lusts  of  the 
soul,  by  a  defiled  memory  and  imagination,  and  by  unbridled 
indulgence,  become  tyrannical  and  inordinate.  And  the  bodily 
limbs  and  organs  of  sense  are  made  servants  of  unrighteous- 
ness. Thus,  what  cannot  be  literally  unholy  is  put  to  unholy 
uses.  But  when  we  thus  discriminate  the  faculties,  we  must  not 
forget  the  unity  and  simplicity  of  the  spirit  of  man.  It  is  a 
monad.  And,  as  we  do  not  conceive  of  it  as  regenerated  or  sanc- 
tified by  patches ;  so  neither  do  we  regard  it  as  depraved  by 
patches.  Original  corruption  is  not,  specifically,  the  perver- 
sion of  a  faculty  in  the  soul,  but  of  the  soul  itself 

By  saying  that   man's  native   depravity  is  total,  we  do  not 
In  what  sense  total  ?    t>y  any  means   intend   that   conscience  is  de- 
And  are  all  natural  vir-    stroyed,  for  the  mau's  guilt  is  evinced  by  this 
tues  spurious .  very  thing,  that  his   heart  prefers  what  con- 

science condemns.  Nor  do  we  mean  that  all  men  are  alike  bad, 
and  all  as  bad  as  they  can  be.  Nor  do  we  mean  to  impugn  the 
genuineness  and  disinterestedness  of  the  social  virtues  and 
charities  in  the  ungodly.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  assert  that  all  the 
civic  rectitude  of  an  Aristides  or  Fabricius,  all  the  charities  of 
domestic  love,  all  the  nobleness  of  disinterested  friendship 
among  the  worldly,  are  selfishness  in  disguise.  But  if  it  be 
allowed  that  many  of  these  acts  are  of  the  true  nature  of  virtue, 
how  can  man  be  called  totally  depraved  ?  We  mean,  first,  that 
as  to  the  chief  responsibility  of  the  soul,  to  love  God,  every  soul 
is  totally  recreant.  No  natural  man  has  any  true  love  for  God 
as  a  spiritual,  holy,  true,  good,  and  righteous  Sovereign.     But 


324  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

this  being  the  pre-eminent  duty  over  all  others  in  the  aggre- 
gate, utter  dereliction  here,  throws  all  smaller,  partial  virtues 
wholly  into  the  shade.  Second  :  while  there  is  something  of 
true  virtue  in  many  secular  acts  and  feelings  of  the  unrenewed, 
which  deserves  the  sincere  approval  and  gratitude  of  fellow- 
men  to  them,  as  between  man  and  man,  there  is  in  those  same 
acts  and  feelings  a  fatal  defect  as  to  God,  which  places  them  on 
the  wrong  side  of  the  moral  dividing  line.  That  defect  is,  that 
they  are  not  prompted  by  any  moral  regard  for  God's  will  requi- 
ring them.  "  God  is  not  in  all  their  thoughts."  Ps.  x  :  4.  Let 
any  worldly  man  analyze  his  motives,  and  he  will  find  that  this 
is  true  of  his  best  secular  acts.  But  the  supreme  regard  ought 
to  be,  in  every  act,  the  desire  to  please  God.  Hence,  although, 
these  secular  virtues  are  much  less  wrong  than  their  opposite 
vices,  they  are  still,  in  God's  sight,  short  of  right,  and  that  in  the 
most  important  particular.  The  deficiency  of  this  carnal  and 
social  virtue  receives  a  very  practical  illustration  thus :  The 
sphere  of  relation,  in  which  the  secular  virtues  of  the  unbe- 
lievers are  practiced,  is  merely  temporary.  As  children,  hus- 
bands or  wives,  parents,  neighbours,  business  men,  they  per- 
form many  disinterested  acts  of  moral  form  ;  being  prompted 
thereto  by  natural,  social  principles.  In  the  other  world,  all 
these  relations  are  abolished.  Where  then  will  be  the  rectitude 
of  persons,  who,  with  all  their  social  excellencies,  had  no  godli- 
ness, when  God  is  the  only  good,  and  the  immediate  object  of 
duty  and  intercourse  ? 

But  third,  native  depravity  is  total,  in  this  sense ;  that  it  is, 
so  far  as  man's  self-recuperation  is  concerned,  decisive  and 
final.  Original  sin  institutes  a  direct  tendency  to  progressive, 
and  at  last,  to  utter  depravity.  In  a  word :  it  is  spiritual  death. 
Corporeal  death  may  leave  its  victim  more  or  less  ghastly.  A 
corpse  may  be  little  emaciated,  still  warm,  still  supple  ;  it  may 
still  have  a  tinge  of  colour  in  the  cheek  and  a  smile  on  its 
lips :  it  may  be  still  precious  and  beautiful  in  the  eyes  of  those 
that  loved  it.  But  it  is  dead,  and  a  loathsome  putrefaction 
approaches,  sooner  or  later.     It  is  only  a  question  of  time. 

7.  The  proofs  of  a  n^ative  and  total  depravity  toward 
God,  are  unfortunately,  so  numerous,  that  little  more  can  be 
attempted  in  one  Lecture,  than  a  statement  of  their  heads. 
They  may  be  grouped  under  the  two  heads  of  experience,  and 
Scripture  statements  and  facts. 

Adam's  sin  reduced  him  to  a  total  depravity,  as  has  been 
Depravity  of  the  shown  in  a  previous  Lecture.  But  the  great 
Race  proved,  ist,  by  law,  which  seems  to  reign  throughout  the 
law  of  reproduction.  vegetable  and  sentient  universe,  wherever  a 
law  of  reproduction  reigns,  is  that  like  shall  beget  like.  And 
this  appears  to  be  confirmed  by  Gen.  v  :  3  ;  Job  xiv  :  4.  Whence 
Adam's  ruin  would  be  a  priori,  a  ground  for  expecting  his  pos- 
terity to  be  born  depraved.     There  are  indeed  some,  (as  Dr, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  325 

Thornwell,  Review  of  Breckinridge,  January,  1858,)  who  deny- 
that  this  law  would  naturally  apply  here,  and  attribute  the  result 
of  Adam's  producing-a  sinful  posterity,  exclusively  to  the  posi- 
tive, federal  connection  appointed  for  them.  They  urge,  that 
the  thing  propagated  by  this  natural  law  is  the  attributes  of  the 
species,  not  its  accidents  ;  that  by  this  cause  any  other  progeni- 
tor between  us  and  our  first  father  would  be  as  much  the  source 
of  our  depravity  as  he ;  and  that  if  the  accident  of  Adam's  fall 
is  propagated,  so  ought  to  be  the  regenerate  nature  produced  in 
him,  and  in  other  progenitors,  by  grace.  This  is  clearly  against 
the  Confession,  ch.  6,  §  3,  and,  it  seems  to  me,  against  the  texts 
quoted.  It  confounds  accidents  in  the  popular  sense  with  acci- 
detis,  in  the  sense  of  the  Logician.  Very  true  :  a  man  who  loses 
an  arm  by  accident,  does  not  propagate  one-armed  children. 
But  in  the  other  sense  of  the  word,  it  will  hardly  be  asserted 
that  the  red  colour  of  Devon  cattle  is  an  attribute,  and  not 
accidents  of  horned  cattle,  and  the  more  refractory  and  savage 
temper  of  the  wild  boar  an  attribute  of  the  species  swine  ;  yet 
both  are  propagated  by  this  law  of  generation,  As  I  have 
before  said,  the  properties  which  define  a  species,  whether 
attributes  or  accidents,  are  just  those  which  are  propagated  in 
it ;  this  is  the  very  idea  of  species.  And  we  may  at  least  claim, 
that  our  progenitors,  since  Adam,  have  certainly  been  channels 
of  transmission  of  depravity  t>)  us.  Their  agency  herein  was 
the  same  as  Adam's  toward  Seth.  Regenerate  character  does 
not  define  the  species  man,  as  a  species  ;  and  hence,  is  not 
propagated,  especially  as  it  is  a  character  only  incipient  in  the 
parents  in  this  life.  Chiefly,  regenerate  character  is  not  propa- 
gated by  parents,  because  it  is  now  not  a  natural,  but  a  super- 
natural property. 

We  argue  native  depravity  from  the  universal  sinfulness  of 
^^  .        ,^.      man,  as  exhibited  in  fact.     Premise,  that  the 

2nd.  By  Universal  Sin.       ,  .ir^-i-  i.  ii.i-u*jj 

•'  strength  01  this  argument  ought  to  be  judged 

according  to  the  tendencies  which  this  prevalent  ungodliness 
would  exert,  not  as  it  is  in  fact,  but  as  it  would  be,  if  unre- 
strained by  the  grace  and  providence  of  God.  What  then  is 
the  fact  ?  We  see  all  men,  under  all  circumstances,  do  much 
that  is  wrong.  We  see  the  world  full  of  wickedness,  much  of 
it  enormous.  We  behold  parents,  masters,  magistrates  and 
teachers  busy  with  multitudes  of  rules  and  laws,  and  a  vast  ap- 
paratus of  prisons,  police,  armies,  and  penalties,  striving  with 
very  indifferent  success,  to  repress  wickedness.  It  is  no  allevi- 
ation to  this  picture  to  say,  that  there  are  also  many  virtues  in 
the  world,  and  more  correct  people  who  leave  no  history,  because 
they  quietly  pursue  a  virtuous  life,  than  of  those  who  make  a 
noise  in  the  world  by  sin.  For  the  majority  of  men  are  rela- 
tively wicked,  taking  the  world  over ;  and  a  truly  honourable 
secular  character,  even,  is  the  exception.  Again  :  as  we  have 
seen,  all  these  virtues  contain  a   fatal   defect,  that  of  not  being 


326  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

performed  for  God's  honour  and  pleasure  ;  a  defect  so  vital,  that 
it  throws  any  element  of  goodness  as  to  man  wholly  into  the 
shade.  Take  the  standard  :  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,"  and  it  will  be  seen  that  the  best  natu- 
ral man  in  the  world  never  comes  up  to  it  in  any  one  act.  How 
then  can  he  claim  any  good  acts  to  balance  against  his  bad  ones, 
when  there  are  none  at  all  wholly  in  the  right  scale  ?  None  that 
are  in  the  right  scale  as  to  the  most  weighty  particular. 

Again  :  the  universal  result  of  the  growth  of  human  beings 
3d.  By  early  apostacy  ^^y  ^^^^^  ^^  soon  as  they  are  old  enough  to 
of  children  from  die  exhibit  any  moral  qualities  in  intelligent 
"§^^-  action,  they  exhibit  some  wrong  ones.     And 

thenceforward,  their  doing  some  wrong  things  is  a  constant 
occurrence,  not  an  occasional  accident.  Yea,  more  :  infants,, 
before  they  are  old  enough  to  understand  their  own  evil  tem- 
pers, show  wicked  tempers,  selfishness,  anger,  spite,  revenge. 
So  testifies  Scripture.     Ps.  Iviii:  3  ;   Gen.  viii :  21. 

Once  more,  we  find  universally,  a  most  obdurate  blindness, 
stupidity,    and    opposition    concerning   the 

Go*d  an^/RKp'o!."     """S'^   °^  *^?<^-     ^°"';  "'"  ■    7-     S°  averse 
are  men  to  the  spiritual  service  of  God,  that 

they  all,  if  left  to  themselves,  postpone  and  refuse  it,  against 
the  dictates  of  reason  and  conscience,  which  they  partially 
obey  in  other  things,  against  motives  absolutely  infinite  ;  and, 
such  is  the  portentous  power  of  this  opposition,  it  overrides 
these  motives  and  influences,  usually,  without  a  seeming  struggle. 
This  universal  prevalence  of  sin  has  appeared  in  man's  history, 
in  spite  of  great  means  for  its  prevention  :  not  only  by  the  legis- 
lation, &c.,  mentioned  :  but  by  chastisements,  the  Flood,  reli- 
gious dispensations,  miracles,  theophanies,  prophecies,  and  the 
incarnation  of  Christ  Himself 

Such  is  a  fair  and  moderate  picture  of  human  experience. 
Scripture  confirms   it,  asserting  the  universal 

i;th.  By  Scri-jture.  ,  i       i.       ■    r   t  r  r^ 

^        ■'       "  and    prevalent    sintuiness  oi  man.     Gen.  vi : 

5  ;  I  Kings  viii :  46  ;  Eccl.  vii :  20 :  Ps.  cxilii :  2  ;  Gal.  iii  :  22  ; 
Rom.  iii:  10-18;  Jas.  iii:  i,  2;  Eccl.  ix :  3,  &c.,  &c. :  Ps.  xiv : 
2,  3  ;  Jer.  xvii :  9. 

Now  an  effect  requires  a  cause.      Here  is   an  effect,  occur- 
ring under   every  variety   of  outward  condi- 
Universal  effects  re-    ^Jqu  and  influences,   universal,  constantly  re- 
quire a  cause.  .  '     .  111 

currmg,    appearmg    immediately    the    time 

arrives  in  the  human  being's  life  which  permits  it.  There  must 
be  a  universal  cause,  and  that,  within  the  human  being  himself 
We  may  not  be  able  to  comprehend  exactly  how  a  moral 
habitus  subsists  in  an  undeveloped  reason  and  conscience ;  but 
we  are  just  as  sure,  that  there  is  an  innate  germinal  cause,  in 
the  human  being's  moral  nature,  for  all  these  moral  results,  as 
we  are  that  there  is,  in  young  apes,  an  innate  cause  why  no 
nurture  or  outward  circumstances  will   ever  by  any  possibility 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  32/ 

develope  one  of  them  into  a  Newton.  This  intuition  is  con- 
firmed by  Scripture.  Luke  vi :  43-45,  &c.  :  Ps.  Iviii :  3,  with 
verse  4. 

The  universal  prevalence   of   bodily   death,   with  its  pre- 
monitory  ills,   of  bodily  infirmity,  a  cursed 

6th   Argument  from     gj-Qund,  toil  and   hardship,  show  that  man's 
prevalence  01  the  curse.      ^^  .'       .  i  ,  •  t-i 

depravity  is  total  and  native.      Ihese  ills  are 

a  part  of  the  great  threatening  made  against  Adam,  and  when 

inflicted  on  him,  it  was   in  immediate   connection  with  spiritual 

death.     Why  suppose  them  severed,  in  any  other  case  ?     It  is 

vain  to  say  that  these  things  are  not  now  the  curse  of  sin,  but  a 

wholesome  chastisement  and  restraint,  and   thus  a  blessing  in 

disguise  ;  for  if  man   were   not   depraved,  he   would   not  need 

such  a  lesson.     Why   does  not  God  see  that   Paradise  is  still 

man's  most  wholesome   state,  as   it  was  Adam's  ?      But  from 

Gen.  ii :  17,  onward,  death  is  always  spoken  of  as  a  punishment 

for  sin.     Then,  where  death   goes,  sin  must  have  gone.     Rom. 

v:  12;    I  Cor.  XV  ;  22.     Especially  the  death   of  infants  proves 

it ;  because  they  cannot  understand  the   disciplinary  effects  of 

suffering  and  death.     See  especially  the  cases  of  the  infants  of 

Sodom,  of  Canaan,  of  Jerusalem,   in  Ezek.  ix  :  6.     Nor  can  it 

be  said  that  infants  die   only  by  the  imputed  guilt  of  Adam's 

sin ;  for  imputed   guilt  and   actual   depravity  are  never   found 

separated  in  the  natural  man. 

The  fact  that  all  need,  and  some  of  all  classes  are  inter- 
ested in  the  redemption  of  Jesus  Christ, 
Re'dem^tioi;!  "''"^  °^  P^o^^s  that  all  have  a  sin  of  nature.  For  if 
they  were  not  sinners,  they  would  not  be 
susceptible  of  redemption.  Among  the  Redeemed  are  "  elect 
infants  dying  in  infancy,"  as  is  proved  by  Luke  xviii  :  16;  Matt. 
xxi  :  16.  But  infants  have  no  actual  transgressions  to  be 
redeemed  from !  Socinians  and  Pelagians  talk  of  a  redemption 
in  their  case,  which  consists  neither  in  an  actual  regeneration 
nor  forgiveness,  but  in  their  resurrection,  and  their  being 
endued  with  a  gracious  and  assured  blessedness.  But  this  is  a 
mere  abuse  of  Scripture  to  speak  of  such  a  process  as  the 
redeeming  work  of  Christ  for  any  human  being.  For  His  very 
name  and  mission  were  from  the  fact  that  He  was  to  save  His 
people  from  their  sins.  Matt,  i  :  21  ;  i  Tim.  i  :  15  ;  Mark  ii  : 
17;  Gal.  ii  :  21  ;  iii  :  21.  Christ  was  sent  to  save  men  from 
perishing.  Jno.  iii  :  16.  His  redemption  is  always  by  blood, 
because  this  typifies  the  atonement  for  sin.  Sin  is  therefore 
co-extensive  with  redemption. 

Again ;  the  application  of  this  redemption  in  effectual  call- 
.  ing  .is  evidence  of  native  depravity.  In 
egenera  lo"- Qj-^gj-  ^\^^^  Christ  may  become  ours,  it  is  most 
repeatedly  declared  that  we  must  be  born  again.  This  regen- 
eration is  a  radical  and  moral  change,  being  not  merely  a 
change  of  purpose  of  life  made  by  a  volition,  but  a  revolution 


328  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  the  propensities  which  prompt  our  purposes.  This  is  proved 
by  the  names  used  to  describe  the  change,  a  new  birth,  a  new- 
creation,  a  quickening  from  death,  a  resurrection,  and  from 
the  Agent,  which  is  not  the  truth,  or  motive,  but  ahnighty  God. 
See  Jno.  iii  :  5  ;  Eph.  i  :  19  to  ii  :  10.  Now,  if  man  needs  this 
moral  renovation  of  nature,  he  must  be  naturally  sinful.  We 
find  our  Saviour  Himself,  Jno.  iii  :  5,  6,  stating  this  very  argu- 
ment. The  context  shows  that  Christ  assigns  the  sixth  verse 
as  a  ground  or  reason  for  the  fifth,  and  not  as  an  explana- 
tion of  the  difficulty  suggested  by  Nicodemus  in  the  fourth. 
Moreover,  the  word  ado^  means,  by  established  Scripture  usage, 
not  the  body,  nor  the  natural  human  constitution '  considered 
merely  as  a  nature,  but  man's  nature  as  depraved  morally. 
Compare  Rom.  vii  :  14,  18  ;  viii  :  4,  7,  8,  9 ;  Col.  ii  :  18;  Gal. 
V  :  16-24;  Gen.  vi  :  3. 

To  this  we  may  add,  one  of  the  meanings  of  circumcision 
and  baptism  was  to  symbolize  this  regeneration,  (another,  to 
represent  cleansing  from  guilt  by  atonement.)  Hence,  sin  is 
recognized  in  all  to  whom  these  sacraments  are  applied  by 
divine  command.  And  as  both  were  given  to  infants,  who  had 
no  intelligent  acts  of  sin,  it  can  only  be  explained  by  their 
having  a  sin  of  nature. 

"VVe  have  seen  how  the  Bible  asserts  a  universal  sinfulness 
,    c    .  r     i'^  practice,  and  how  it  sustained  us  in  trac- 

Qth.   Scripture  proofs.    •         .  i      .  •  i      ■  ... 

mg  that  universal  sm  up  to  its  source  in  a  sin 
■of  nature.  We  close  with  a  fe\y  specimens  of  other  texts, 
which  expressly  assert  original  sin.  Job  xiv  :  4;  xv  :  14-16; 
Prov.  xxii  :  15  ;   Ps.  Ii  :  5  ;  Eph.  ii  :  3. 

The  evasions  to  which  the  deniers  of  Original  Sin  are 
forced  to  resort,  to  escape  these  categorical  assertions,  are  too 
numerous  and  contradictory  to  be  recited  or  answered  here. 
Let  these  texts  be  carefully  studied  in  their  scope  and  con- 
nection. 

One  of  these  I  will  notice :  It  has  been  objected  that  the 
innocence  of  children  seems  to  be  asserted  in  such  places  as 
Ps.  cvi  :  38;  Jonah  iv  :  11  ;  Jno.  ix  :  3  ;  Rom.  ix  :  11.  I  ex- 
plain, that  this  is  only  a  relative  innocence.  The  sacred  writers 
here  recognize  their  freedom  from  the  guilt  of  all  actual  trans- 
gression, and  their  harmlessness  towards  their  fellow  men  dur- 
ing this  helpless  age.  This,  together  with  their  engaging 
simplicity,  dependence,  and  infantile  graces,  has  made  them 
types  of  innocence  in  all  languages.  And  this  is  all  the 
Scriptures  mean. 

The    Hebrew  word  ^l^'H  and  the  Greek,  /jiyiZoiiM  both 
o    T       .  r         ,       mean    primarily    to  think,   then  to   deem   or 

8.    Imputation      de-     .      ,  i,  ^     -^.  ,  '  .,  -r         ,  . 

fined.  J>Jdgc,  then  to  impute  or  attribute.     In  this 

sense  the  former  occurs  in  Ps.  xxxii  :  2,  and 

the  latter  in  Rom.  iv  :  6-8,  as  its  translation.     See  also  2  Sam. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  329 

xix  :  19;  2  Cor.  v  :  19;  Gal.  iii  :  6 ;  Jas.  ii  :  23.  Without  going 
at  this  time  into  the  vexed  question,  whether  anything  is  ever 
said  in  Scripture  to  be  imputed  to  any  other  than  its  own 
agent,  I  would  define,  that  it  is  not  Adam's  sin  which  is  imputed 
to  us,  but  the  guilt  (obligation  to  punishment)  of  his  first  sin. 
This  much  misunderstood  doctrine  does  not  teach  that  Adam's 
act  was  actually  made  ours.  This  consciousness  repudiates. 
We  know  that  we  personally  did  not  will  it.  Nor  does  it  mean 
that  we  are  to  feel  personally  defiled  and  blameworthy,  with 
the  vileness  and  demerit  of  Adam's  sin.  For  us  to  undertake 
to  repent  of  it  in  this  sense,  would  be  as  preposterous  as  for  us 
to  feel  self-complacency  for  the  excellence  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness imputed  to  us.  But  we  are  so  associated  with  Adam 
in  the  legal  consequences  of  the  sin  which  closed  his  probation, 
and  ours  in  his,  that  we  are  treated  as  he  is,  on  account  of  his 
act.  The  grounds  of  this  legal  union  we  hold  to  be  two;  1st 
the  natural  union  with  him  as  the  root  of  all  mankind  ;  2d  the 
federal  relation  instituted  in  him,  by  God's  covenant  with  him. 
Now,  we  do  not  say  that  the  Scriptures  anywhere  use  the  par- 
ticular phrase,  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  was  imputed  to  us ;  but 
we  claim  that  the  truth  is  clearly  implied  in  the  transactions  as 
they  actually  occurred,  and  is  substantially  taught  in  other 
parts  of  Scripture. 

If  Adam  came  under  the  covenant  of  works  as  a  public 

person,    and    acted    there,    not    for    himself 

mpii  a  on  prove  .     ^Iqj^^^   \^^^  foj-    j^jg    posterity   federally,   this 

implies  the  imputation  of  the  legal  consequences  of  his  act  to 
them.  The  proof  that  Adam  was  a  federal  head,  in  all  these 
acts,  is  clear  as  can  be,  from  so  compendious  a  narrative.  See 
Gen.  i  :  22,  28;  iii  :  15, to  19;  ix  :  3.  In  the  dominion  assigned 
man  over  the  beasts,  in  the  injunction  to  multiply,  in  the  privil- 
ege of  eating  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  in  the  hallowing  of  the 
Sabbath,  God  spoke  seemingly  only  to  the  first  pair;  but  His 
words  indisputably  applied  as  well  to  their  posterity.  So  we 
infer,  they  are  included  in  the  threat  of  death  for  disobedience, 
and  the  implied  promise  of  Ch.  ii  :  17.  To  see  the  force  of  this 
inference,  remember  that  it  is  the  established  style  of  Genesis. 
See  ix  :  25  to  27 ;  xv  :  7 ;  xvi  :  12 ;  xvii  :  20;  in  each  case  the 
patriarch  stands  for  himself  and  his  posterity,  in  the  meaning 
of  the  promise.  But  this  is  more  manifest  in  Gen.  iii  :  15-19 
where  God  proceeds  to  pass  sentence  according  to  the  threat 
of  the  broken  Covenant.  The  serpent  is  to  be  at  war  with  the 
woman's  seed.  The  ground  is  cursed  for  Adam's  sin.  Does 
not  this  curse  affect  his  posterity,  just  as  it  did  him  ?  See  Gen. 
V  :  29.  He  is  to  eat  his  bread  in  the  sweat  of  his  face.  Does 
not  this  pass  over  to  his  posterity  ?  The  w^oman  has  her  pecul- 
iar punishment,  shared  equally  by  all  her  daughters.  And  in 
the  closing  sentence,  death  to  death,  we  all  read  the  doom  of 
our  mortality.     So   plain  is  all  this,  that  even   Pelagians  have 


330  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

allowed  that  God  acted  here  judicially.  But  Adam's  posterity- 
is  included  in  the  judgment.  No  better  description  of  impu- 
tation need  be  required. 

A  presumption  in  favour  of  this  solution  is  raised  by  a 
number  of  facts  in  God's  providence.  He 
edbTS^ed'encT^™'  usually  connects  the  people  and  their  head, 
the  children  and  parents,  in  the  consequences 
of  the  representative's  conduct.  Wherever  there  is  such  a 
political  union,  this  follows.  Nor  is  the  consent  of  the  persons 
represented  always  obtained,  to  justify  the  proceeding.  Instan- 
ces may  be  found  in  the  decalogue,  Exod.  xx  :  5,  the  deliver- 
ance of  Rahab's  house  by  her  faith.  Josh,  vi  :  25  ;  the  destruc- 
tion of  Achan's  by  his  sin.  Josh,  vii  :  24,  25  ;  of  the  posterity 
of  Amalek  for  the  sins  of  their  forefathers,  i  Sam.  xv  :  2  ;  of 
Saul's  descendants  for  his  breach  of  covenant  with  the  Gibeon- 
ites,  2  Sam.  xxi  :  1-9;  of  the  house  of  Jeroboam,  i  Kings  xiv: 
9,  10;  and  of  the  generation  of  Jews  cotemporary  with  Christ, 
Matt,  xxiii  :  35.  So,  nations  are  chastised  with  their  rulers, 
children  with  their  parents.  It  is  not  asserted  that  the  case  of 
Adam  and  his  posterity  is  exactly  similar;  but  cases  bearing 
some  resemblance  to  its  principles  show  that  it  is  not  unreason- 
able ;  and  since  God  actually  orders  a  multitude  of  such  cases, 
and  yet  cannot  do  wrong,  they  cannot  contain  the  natural 
injustice  which  has  been  charged  upon  Adam's  case. 

The  explanation  presented  by  the  doctrine  of  imputation 

is  demanded  by  the  mere  facts  of  the  case. 

Imputation   implied    ^g  ^^        ^^^  admitted  by  all  except  Pelagians 

m  man's  estate.  j    c       ■    •  tx/t       >      •  •   -^      11      ti       j 

and  Socinians.     Man  s  is  a  spiritually  dead 

and  a  condemned  race.  See  Eph.  ii  :  1-5,  et  passim.  He  is 
obviously  under  a  curse  for  something,  from  the  beginning  of 
his  life.  Witness  the  native  depravity  of  infants,  and  their 
inheritance  of  woe  and  death.  Now,  either  man  was  tried  and 
fell  in  Adam,  or  he  has  been  condemned  without  a  trial.  He 
is  either  under  the  curse  (as  it  rests  on  him  at  the  beginning 
of  his  existence)  for  Adam's  guilt,  or  for  no  guilt  at  all.  Judge 
which  is  most  honorable  to  God,  a  doctrine  which,  although  a 
profound  mystery,  represents  Him  as  giving  man  an  equita- 
ble and  most  favoured  probation  in  His  federal  head ;  or  that 
which  makes  God  condemn  him  untried,  and  even  before    he 

exists. 

Note  here,  that  the  lower  Arminian  view,  in  making  man's 
Not  to  be  accounted    fallen  state  by  nature  a  mere  result  of  the 
for  by  mere  law  of  re-    law:    "Like    must    beget    like,"    does    not 
production.  relieve  the  case.    For  who  ordained  that  law  ? 

Who  placed  the  human  race  under  it,  as  to  their  spirits  as  well 
as  their  body?  Was  not  God  able  to  endue  a  race  with  a  law 
of  generation  which  should  be  different  in  this  particular,  or  to 
continue  the  race  of  man  by  some  other  plan,  as  successive 
creations  ?     The  very  act  of  God,  in  ordaining  this  law  for  man 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  33 1 

whom  He  purposed  to  permit  to  fall,  was  virtually  to  ordain  a 
federal  connection  between  Adam  and  his  race,  and  to  decide 
beforehand  the  virtual  imputation  of  his  guilt  to  them.  For 
man  is  not  a  vegetable,  nor  a  mere  animal ;  but  a  rational, 
responsible  person.  The  results  of  this  law  of  reproduction 
prove  to  be,  in  the  case  of  Adam  and  his  posterity,  just  such 
as,  when  applied  to  rational  agents,  are  penal.  Now,  the  ques- 
tion is  :  Why  does  God  subject  souls,  which  have  a  personal 
liberty  and  destiny,  to  the  dominion  of  a  law  which  we  see,  in 
its  other  instances,  merely  vegetative  and  animal  ?  This  is  the 
moral  problem.  It  is  no  solution  to  say,  that  the  case  is  such. 
To  say  this  is  only  to  obtrude  the  difficulty  as  the  solution.  If 
then,  this  extension  of  the  law  of  reproduction  was  not  a 
righteous,  judicial  one  and  based  on  the  guilt  of  Adam,  it  was  an 
arbitrary  one,  having  no  foundation  in  justice. 

But  the  great  Bible  argument  for  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  is  the  parallel  drawn  between 
StlfSTconisfh?"'  Adam  and  Christ,  in  i  Cor.  xv  :  21,  22,  45- 
49,  and  Rom.  v  :  12-19.  The  latter  of  these 
passages,  especially  has  been  the  peculiar  subject  of  exegetical 
tortures.  See,  for  scheme  of  immediate  imputationists,  Hodge 
on  Rom. ;  of  moderate  Calvinists,  Baird,  Elohim  Rev.,  Chap, 
xiv.,  and  Calvin  /;/  loco.  I  shall  not  go  over  the  expository 
arguments,  for  time  forbids ;  and  they  are  rather  the  appropri- 
ate business  of  another  department ;  but  shall  content  myself 
with  stating  the  doctrinal  results,  which,  as  I  conceive,  are 
clearly  established.  In  i  Cor.  xv  :  Adam  and  Christ  are  com- 
pared, as  the  first  and  the  second  Adam.  In  almost  every  thing 
they  are  contrasted ;  the  one  earthy,  the  other  heavenly ;  the 
one  source  of  death,  the  other  of  life ;  yet  they  have  some- 
thing in  common.  What  can  this  be,  except  their  representa- 
tive characters?  In  verse  22,  Adam  is  somehow  connected 
with  the  death  of  his  confederated  body ;  and  Christ  is  simi- 
larly {&a7zzn  . . .  o"jTco)  connected  with  the  life  of  his.  But  Christ 
redeems  His  people  by  the  imputation  to  them  of  His  right- 
eousness. Must  not  Adam  have  ruined  his,  by  the  imputation 
to  them  of  his  guilt? 

In  Rom.  v  :  12-19,  ^^  is  agreed  by  all  Calvinistic  interpre- 
ters that  the  thing  illustrated  is  justification 
^^Exposition  of  Rom.  through  faith,  which  is  the  great  doctrine  of 
the  Epistle  to  Romans,  denied  at  that  time 
by  Jews.  The  thing  used  for  illustration  is  .Adam's  federal 
headship  and  our  sin  and  death  in  him,  more  generally  admit- 
ted by  Jews.  The  passage  is  founded  on  the  idea  of  verse  14, 
that  Adam  is,  the  figure  {ru-o^i)  of  Christ.  And  obviously,  a 
comparison  is  begun  in  verse  12,  which  is  suspended  by  paren- 
thetic matter  until  verse  18,  and  there  resumed  and  completed. 
The  amount  of  this  comparison  is  indisputably  this :  that  like 
as  we  fell  in  Adam,  we  are  justified  in  Christ.     Hence  our  gen- 


332  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

eral  argument  for  imputation  of  Adam's  sin;  because  justifica- 
tion is  notoriously  by  imputation. 

2.  It  is  asserted  verse  12,  and  proved  vs.  13,  14,  that  all 
men  sinned  and  were  condemned  in  Adam ;  death,  the  estab- 
lished penalty  of  sin,  passing  upon  them  through  his  sin,  as  is 
proved,  verse  14,  by. the  death  of  those  who  had  no  actual 
transgression  of  their  own. 

3.  The  very  exceptions  of  vs.  15-17,  where  the  points  are 
stated  in  which  the  resemblance  does  not  hold,  show  that 
Adam's  sin  is  imputed.  Our  federal  union  with  Adam,  says 
the  Apostle,  resulted  in  condemnation  and  death  with  Christ  in 
abounding  grace.  In  the  former  case,  one  sin  condemned  all ; 
in  the  latter,  one  man's  righteousness  justifies  all.  The  very 
exceptions  show  that  men  are  condemned  for  Adam's  sin. 

4.  In  vs.  18,  19,  the  comparison  is  resumed  and  completed; 
and  it  is  most  emphatically  stated  that,  as  in  Christ  many  are 
constituted  righteous,  so  in  Adam  many  were  constituted  sin- 
ners. Scriptural  usage  of  the  phrase  xai'iiaTrj'^ac  ocxatoi,  and 
what  is  taught  of  the  nature  of  our  justification  in  Christ, 
together  with  the  usage  of  the  phrase  or/.auoar^  C*^'^'^''  verse  18, 
by  which  it  is  defined,  prove  that  it  is  a  forensic  change  which 
is  implied.  Then  it  follows  that  likewise  our  legal  relations 
were  determined  by  Adam.     This  is  imputation. 


LECTURE  XXIX. 

ORIGINAL  SIN.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

9.  Refute  the  evasions  of  the  Pelagians  and  others  from  the  argument  for  native 
■depravity. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  10.     Edwards  on  Orig.  Sin,  pt.  i,  ch.  i,  |  9. 

10.  Answer  the  objections  to  imputation,  (a)  ivoxn  the  Scriptures,  as  Deut.  xxiv  : 
16,  and  Ezclc.  xviii  :  20;  (b)  from  the  absence  of  consent  by  us  to  Adam's  represen- 
tation; (c)  from  its  supposed  injustice;   (d)  from  God's  goodness. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  9.  Edwards,  pt.  iv.  Stapfer,  Pol.  Theol.,  Vol.  iv,  ch.  17,  g  78. 
Thornwell,  Lect.  13.     Knapp,  ^  76.     Hodge,  Tlieol.,  pt.  ii,  ch.  8,  ^  13. 

11.  Explain  tlie  theories  of  Mediate  and  Immediate  Imputation  and  show  the 
correct  view. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  9..  Edwards,  pt.  iv,  ch.  3.  Stapfer,  Pol.  Theol.,  Vol.  i,  ch.  3, 
g  856-7;  Vol.  iv.  ch.  16,  and  as  above.  South.  Presb.  Rev.,  April,  1873,  Art. 
i.  and  April,  1875,  Art.  6.  Breckinridge's  Theol.,  Vol.  i,  ch.  32.  Review  of 
Dr.  Thornwell's  Collected  Works,  Vol.  i,  p.  445,  &c.  Hodge,  pt.  ii,  ch.  8. 
Baird's  Elohim  Revealed,  ch.  14.  Calv.  Inst.,  bk.  i,  ch.  2,  and  Com.  on  Rom. 
v.     Chalmers'   Theo.  Institutes.     Princeton  Review,  1830.  pp.  481-503. 

12.  What  the  importance  of  the  doctrine  of  Original  Sin,  from  its  connections 
with  the  other  doctrines  of  Redemption  ? 

9     WE  now  group  together  the  usual  objections  advanced 
•      by  opponents  against  our  argument  for  native  depravity. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  333- 

It  is  urged,  if  the  sinning  of  men   now  proves  they  have 
O  b  ■  e  c  t  i  o  n  s     ^'^'^tive  depravity,  Adam's  sinning  would  prove 
Adam    sinned;      but    that  he  had  ;  since  the  generaHty  of  an  effect 
was  not  originally  cor-    does  not  alter  its  nature.     I  reply,  the  soph- 
^^P^'  ism  is  in  veiling  Adam's  continued  and  hab- 

itual sinning,  after  he  fell,  with  the  first  sin,  by  which  he  fell. 
Did  we  only  observe  Adam's  habit  of  sinning,  without  having 
known  him  from  his  origin,  the  natural  and  reasonable  induc- 
tion, so  far  as  human  reason  could  go,  would  be,  that  he  was 
originally  depraved.  But  the  proof  would  be  incomplete, 
because  our  observation  did  not  trace  this  habit  up,  as  we  do  in 
the  ease  of  infants,  to  the  origin  of  his  existence.  It  is  revela- 
tion which  informs  us  how  Adam  became  a  habitual  sinner, 
not  inference.  But  if  Adam's  first  sin  be  compared  with  his. 
descendant's  perpetual  sins,  the  difference  is,  that  an  occaional 
effect  requires  an  occasional  cause ;  but  a  constant  effect 
requires  a  constant  cause. 

Some  Pelagians  say,  a  self-determined,  contingent  will,  is 
enough  to  account  for  all  men's  sinning.  We  reply  :  how  comes 
a  contingent  force  to  produce  always  uniform  effects  ?  If  a  die, 
when  thrown,  falls  in  various  ways,  its  falling  is  contingent.  But 
if  it  always  fall  the  same  way,  every  gambler  knows  it  is  loaded. 

Pelagians  offer  the  general  power  of  an  evil  example,  as 
the  sufficient  explanation  why  all  men  grow 
accomuforit ?  ^^  ^*  up  sinners.  Calvinists  answer,  (a).  ¥L(Jw 
comes  it  that  the  example  is  universally  evil  ? 
This  itself  is  the  effect  to  be  accounted  for.  (b).  If  there  were  no 
innate  tendency  to  evil,  a  bad  example  would  usually  repel  and 
disgust  the  holy  soul.  (c).  All  young  immortals  have  not  been 
subjected  to  an  equally  bad  example  ;  witness  the  godly  fam- 
ilies of  Adam,  Seth,  Noah,  Abraham,  and  the  pious  now,  and 
above  all,  the  spotless  example  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  the  power 
of  example  were  the  decisive  cause,  these  good  examples  (not 
perfect,  but,)  approximating  thereto,  would  sometimes  have 
produced  an  efficient  upward  tendency  in  some  families. 

Some    say :     Sense    developes    before    reason ;    and   thus 
,  the  child  is  betrayed  under  the  power  of  ap- 

senseaccminrforsin°!  petite,  before  _  its  moral  faculties  are  strong 
enough  to  guide  him.  I  answer,  mere  ani- 
mal appetite,  without  moral  element,  has  no  moral  quality  ; 
it  is  the  heart  which  gives  the  evil  element  to  bodily  appetite, 
not  vice  versa.  But  chiefly;  we  show  that  the  result  is  uniform 
and  certain  :  whence  it  would  be  the  efficient  result  of  God's 
natural  law  ;  which  makes  it  more  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of 
making  God  the  author  of  sin,  than  the  Calvinistic  theory. 

Against   the    other    element   of  original   sin,   the   imputed 

.     .  guilt  of  Adam's   first  sin,  it   is  also  objected,. 

Imputations^  °"^     '^    ^^^^t   it   cannot  be   true :    for  then   God    will 

appear   to    have    acted    with    equal    severity 


334  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

against  poor  helpless  babes,  who,  on  the  Calvinist's  theory, 
have  no  g^ailt  except  total  depravity  never  yet  expressed  in  a 
single  overt  act  against  His  law ;  and  against  Adam,  the  volun- 
tary sinner :  and  Satan  and  his  angels.  We  reply,  No.  All 
infinites  are  not  equal.  Paschal  and  Sir  Isaac  Newton  have 
shown,  that  of  two  true  infinites  one  may  be  infinitely  larger 
than  another.  If  the  infant,  Adam,  and  Satan,  be  all  punished 
eternally,  they  will  not  be  punished  equally.  Further  ;  has  it 
been  proved  that  any  infants  who  die  in  infancy,  (without 
overt  sin),  are  eternally  lost  ?  The  question  however  is  :  are 
infants  depraved  by  nature?  And  is  this  tendency  of  will 
to  evil,  morally  evil?  Then  God  is  entitled  to  punish  it  as  it 
deserves. 

A  Scriptural  objection  is  raised,  from  such  passages  as 
Deut.  xxiv  :  i6.  It  is  urged  with  great  con- 
Scdptur2°'''  ^''°™  fidence,  that  here,  the  principle  on  which 
Calvinists  represent  God  as  acting,  (God  the 
pure  and  good  Father  in  Heaven,)  is  seen  to  be  so  utterly 
wicked,  that  imperfect  human  magistrates  are  forbidden  to  prac- 
tice on  it.  I  reply  ;  it  is  by  no  means  true  that  an  act  would  be 
wicked  in  God,  because  it  would  be  wicked  in  man.  e.  g. 
Man  may  not  kill ;  God  righteously  kills  millions  every  year. 
But  second:  the  object  of  civil  government  is  very  different 
from  that  of  God's  government.  The  civil  magistrate  does  not 
punish  sin  in  order  to  requite  absolutely  its  ill-desert,  (this  is 
the  function  of  God  alone,)  but  to  preserve  the  public  order 
and  well-being,  by  making  an  example  of  criminals.  Now,  of 
that  element  of  guilt  against  society,  the  children  of  the  mur- 
derer or  thief  are  clear  ;  for  the  magistrate  to  shed  their  blood 
for  this,  would  be  to  shed  innocent  blood  :  i.  e.,  innocent  as  to 
that  element  of  guilt  which  it  is  the  civil  magistrate's  business 
to  punish.  Here,  let  it  be  noted,  the  punishment  of  Achan's, 
Saul's,  &c.,  children,  for  their  fathers,  was  the  act  of  God,  not 
the  magistrate.     The  cases  were  exceptional. 

Again :  it  is  urged  with  much  clamour,  that  in  Ezek.  xviii : 
Objections  from  1-23,  God  expressly  repudiates  the  scheme 
Ezek.  xviii :  1-23  an-  of  imputation  of  fathers'  sins  to  their  poster- 
^^^'"*^'^-  ity,  for   Himself,  as  well   as   for  magistrates  ; 

and  declares  this  as  the  great  law  of  His  kingdom  :  "  The  soul 
that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."  We  reply-:  He  does  not  mean  to 
disclaim  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  the  human  race.  For 
first :  He  does  not  mean  here,  to  disclaim  all  principles  of  im- 
putation in  His  Providence  even  as  to  parents  and  posterity 
subsequent  to  Adam.  If  you  force  this  sense  on  His 
words,  all  you  get  by  it  is  an  irreconcilable  collision  between 
this  passage  and  Exod.  xx  :  5,  and  obvious  facts  in  His  provi- 
dence. Second,  if  it  were  true  universally  of  human  parents 
subsequent  to  Adam,  it  would  not  follow  as  to  Adam's  first 
sin.     For  there  is  a  clear  distinction  between  that  act  of  Adam, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  335 

and  all  the  sins  of  other  parents.  He  alone  was  a  federal  head 
in  a  Covenant  of  works.  The  moment  he  fell,  by  that  act,  the 
race  fell  in  him,  and  its  apostasy  was  effected  ;  the  thing  was 
done  ;  and  could  not  be  done  over.  From  that  hour,  a  Cove- 
nant of  works  became  inapplicable  to  man,  and  neither  parents 
nor  children,  for  themselves,  nor  for  each  other,  have  had  any 
probation  under  it.  '  So  that  the  case  is  widely  different, 
between  Adam  in  his  first  sin,  and  all  other  parents  in  their 
sin.  Third  :  the  Covenant  to  which  this  whole  passage  has  ref- 
erence was,  not  the.  old  Covenant  of  works,  whose  probation 
was  forever  past,  but  the  political,  theocratic  Covenant  between 
God  and  Israel.  Israel,  as  a  commonwealth,  was  now  suffering 
under  providential  penalties,  for  the  breach  of  that  political 
covenant  exactly  according  to  the  terms  of  the  threatenings. 
(See  Deut.  xxviii).  But  although  that  was  indisputable,  the 
banished  Jews  still  consoled  their  pride  by  saying,  that  it  was 
their  fathers'  breach  of  the  national  Covenant  for  which  they 
were  suffering.  In  this  plea  God  meets  them :  and  tells  them 
it  was  false  :  for  the  terms  of  the  theocracy  were  such  that  the 
covenant-breaking  of  the  father  would  never  be  visited  under 
it  on  the  son  who  thoroughly  disapproved  of  it,  and  acted  in 
the  opposite  way.  How  far  is  this  from  touching  the  subject  of 
Original  Sin  ?  But  last :  we  might  grant  that  the  passage  did 
refer  to  original  sin:  and  still  refute  the  objector  thus:  God 
says  the  son  who  truly  disapproves  of  and  reverses  his  father's 
practices,  shall  live.  Show  us  now,  a  child  of  Adam  who  ful- 
fills this  condition,  in  his  own  strength  ;  and  we  will  allow  that 
the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  has  not  affected  him. 

In    defending   the  federal    relationship  instituted   between 
Adam's  Representa-    Adam  and  his  posterity  against  the  charge  of 
tion  a  humane  arrange-    cruelty,  let   it  be  distinctly  understood,  that 
'"^"''  we  do  not  aim  to  justify  the   equity  of  the 

arrangement  merely  by  the  plea  that  it  was  a  benevolent  one, 
and  calculated  to  promote  the  creature's  advantage.  For  if  it 
were  an  arrangement  intrinsically  unrighteous,  it  would  be  no 
sufficient  answer  to  say,  that  it  was  politic  and  kindly.  God 
does  not  "  do  evil,  that  good  may  come  ;  "  nor  hold  that  "  the 
end  sanctifies  the  means."  But  still,  we  claim  that,  as  the  sep- 
arate charge  of  cruelty,  or  harshness,  is  urged  against  this  fed- 
eral arrangement,  we  can  triumphantly  meet  it,  and  show  that 
the  arrangement  was  eminently  benevolent ;  thus  reconciling  it 
to  the  divine  attribute  of  goodness,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned 
in  it.  And  further  :  while  the  benevolence  of  an  arrangement 
may  not  be  a  sufficient  justification  of  its  righteousness,  yet  it 
evidently  helps  to  palliate  the  charge  of  injustice,  and  to  raise  a 
presumption  in  favor  of  the  equity  of  the  preceeding.  If  there 
were  injustice  in  such  a  transaction,  one  element  of  it  must  be 
that  it  was  mischievous  to  the  happiness  of  the  parties. 

The  federal  relation,  then,  was  consistent  with  God's  good- 


336  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Its  benevolence  ness.  Let  the  student  remember  what  was 
proved  by  Compari-  estabhshed  concerning  the  natural  rights  and 
^°"-  relations  of  a  holy  creature  towards  his  Cre- 

ator. The  former  could  nev^er  earn  a  claim,  by  natural  justice, 
to  any  more  than  this  :  to  be  well  treated  to  the  extent  of  his 
natural  well-being  merely,  as  long  as  he  behaves  himself  per- 
fectly, or  until  God  should  see  fit  to  annihilate  him.  If  God 
condescended  to  any  fuller  communications  of  happiness,  or  to 
give  any  promise  of  eternal  life,  it  must  be  by  an  act  of  free 
grace.  And  the  covenant  of  works  was  such  an  act  of  grace. 
Now,  a  race  of  men  being  created,  holy  and  happy,  there  were, 
as  far  as  the  human  mind  can  imagine,  but  four  plans  possible 
for  them.  One  was,  to  be  left  under  their  natural  relation  to 
God  forever.  The  second  was,  to  have  the  gracious  offer  of  a 
covenant  of  works,  under  which  each  one  should  stand  for 
himself,  and  a  successful  probation  of  some  limited  period, 
(suppose  70  years,)  be  kindly  accepted  by  God  for  his  justifica- 
tion, and  adoption  into  eternal  life.  The  third  was,  for  God 
to  enter  into  such  a  covenant  of  works,  for  a  limited  period,, 
with  the  head  of  the  race  federally,  for  himself  and  his  race,  so 
that  if  he  stood  the  limited  probation,  justification  and  adoption 
should  be  graciously  bestowed  on  him,  and  in  him,  on  all  the 
race  ;  and  if  he  failed,  all  should  be  condemned  in  him.  The 
last  was  the  plan  actually  chosen  :  Let  us  compare  them,  and 
see  if  it  is  not  far  the  most  benevolent  of  the  three. 

The  first  plan,  I  assert,  would  have  resulted,  sooner  or 
later,  m  the  sin  and  fall  of  every  member  of  the  race,  and  that, 
with  a  moral  certainty.  (This  may  be  the  reason  that  God  has 
condescended  to  a  Covenant  with  each  order  of  rational 
creatures  after  creating  them).  For  creatures,  no  matter  how 
holy,  are  finite,  in  all  their  faculties  and  habitudes.  But,  in 
an  existence  under  law,  i.  e.,  under  duty,  requiring  perpetual 
and  perfect  obedience,  and  protracted  to  immortality,  the  num- 
ber and  variety  of  exegencies  or  moral  trials,  would  become 
infinite  ;  and  therefore  the  chance  of  error,  in  the  passage  of  a 
finite  holiness  through  them,  would  become  ultimately  a  most 
violent  probability,  mounting  nearer  and  nearer  to  a  moral  cer- 
tainty. Whenever  sin  occurred,  the  mere  natural  relation  qf  the 
soul  to  God  would  require  Him  to  avenge  it.  Thus  one  after 
another  would  stumble,  till  ultimately  all  were  lost.  Were  inno- 
cent creatures  thus  required  to  sustain  and  guide  themselves, 
as  they  moved  in  their  exact  orbits  around  the  throne  of  God  : 
one  after  another  would,  in  the  lapse  of  an  eternity,  forsake  the 
path,  increase  his  centrifugal  force,  and  fly  off  into  outer  dark- 
ness ;  leaving  God  at  last,  a  sun  without  a  planet.  This  plan 
would  have  been  least  benevolent. 

But  suppose  each  man  allowed  the  privilege  of  a  Covenant 
of  works,  for  some  limited  time,  to  win  the  grace  of  adoption 
unto  life  by  a  perfect  obedience   for,  say,  70  years,  and  begin- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  337 

ning  his  probation  with  a  perfectly  innocent  nature.  How 
would  that  work  ?  Why  :  have  we  not  here,  the  very  state  of 
the  case  which  Socinians  and  Pelagians  say,  actually  prevails  ? 
Let  man's  experience  then,  even  as  interpreted  by  these  heretics, 
give  the  answer  how  it  works.  Do  they  not  admit  that,  by  vir- 
tue of  evil  example,  nearly  all  fall  ?  Can  they  deny  that  the 
earth  is  full  of  misery  and  wickedness ;  and  that  none  remain 
absolutely  innocent?  If  then,  our  present  state  were  consist- 
ently interpreted  as  a  probation' under  a  Covenant  of  works,  in 
which  any  sin  forfeits  the  prize ;  if  Pelagians  would  be  con- 
sistent, and  not  introduce  the  preposterous  idea  of  pardon 
under  such  a  plan,  where  it  has  no  place ;  even  they  would  be 
compelled  to  admit  that  this  second  scheme  does  actually  result 
in  a  total  failure.  Under  it,  all  are  destroyed.  It  too,  then  has 
as  little  beneficence  as  the  first.  This,  I  grant,  is  an  argiunen- 
twn  ad  homiiiem  ;  but  it  is  a  just  one.  But  we  might  leave  the 
Pelagian's  premises,  and  still  reason,  that  the  second  scheme 
would  only  result  in  death.  The  actual  failure  of  the  first  man's 
probation  settles  the  question  as  to  him.  The  next  would  have 
had  the  same  chances  of  fall,  aggravated  by  the  evil  example 
and  enticements  of  the  first ;  and  soon,  the  current  of  evil  would 
have  become  so  general  that  all  would  go  with  it. 

Let  us  come  to  the  third  plan.     Is  it  said,  that  practically, 
Advantao-e  of  Cove-    ^^^    \'^2i.ve  died  under  that  also,  so  that  it  is 
nantof  Works,  with  a   just  on  a  par  with  the  other  two?     I  answer, 
Representative.  j^q  .    because  the   probabilities   of   a   favour- 

able issue  were  as  great  as  could  well  be  imagined,  compatibly 
with  leaving  the  creature  mutable  at  all.  For,  instead  of  having 
a  risque  repeated  millions  of  times,  under  circumstances  increas- 
ingly untoward,  only  one  risque  was  permitted.  And  this  was 
under  the  most  favourable  possible  conditions.  The  probationer 
had  no  human  bad  company ;  he  was  in  the  maturity  of  his 
powers  and  knowledge ;  whereas  his  posterity  would  have  had 
to  begin  their  trial  in  their  inexperienced  boyhood.  He  had  the 
noblest  motives  to  stand,  imaginable.  Had  the  probation  re- 
sulted favourably,  so  that  we  had  all  entered  existence  assured 
against  sin  and  misery,  and  the  adopted  heirs  of  eternal  life, 
how  should  we  have  magnified  the  goodness  of  God  in  the  dis- 
pensation ?  The  grace  bestowed  through  the  first  Adam,  would 
have  been  only  second  in  its  glory,  to  that  we  now  adore  in  the 
second!  Now,  the  failure  was  not  God's  fault;  His  goodness 
is  just  the  same  in  the  plan,  as  though  it  had  eventuated  well. 
It  is  no  objection  to  say,  that  God  foreknew,  all  the  while,  how 
unfortunately  it  would  eventuate,  and  even  determined  to  per- 
mit it.  For  this  objection  is  no  other  than  the  one  against  the 
permission  of  evil ;  which  no  one  can  solve.  It  is  but  to  restate 
the  question :  Why  did  not  God  just  communicate  Himself  at 
once  to  every  reasonable  creature,  so  as  absolutely  to  confirm 
His  will  against  sin,  without  proposing  any  covenant,  or  proba- 


338  SYLLAbUS    AND    NOTES 

tion  at  all  ?  There  is  no  answer,  but  Matt,  xi ;  26.  This  plan, 
the  fourth  and  only  other,  being  excluded,  as  stubborn  fact 
proves  it  was,  the  federal  arrangement  made  with  Adam  for  his 
posterity,  was  the  most  liberal  one. 

But  the  grand  objection  of  all  Pelagians  and  skeptics,  is 
still  repeated  :  How  can  it  be  justice,  for 
tic?KpSf  ^""  me,^vhogave  no  consent  to  the  federal  ar- 
rangement,  for  me,  who  was  not  present 
when  Adam  sinned,  and  took  no  share  in  it,  save  in  a  sense  purely 
fictitious  and  imaginary,  to  be  so  terribly  punished  for  another 
man's  deed.  This  is  nothing  else  than  the  intrinsic  injustice  of 
punishing  an  innocent  man  for  the  fault  of  the  guilty.  As  well 
might  God  have  gotten  up  a  legal  fiction  of  a  federal  relation 
between  Gabriel  and  Satan,  and  when  the  latter  sinned,  drasreed 
Gabriel  down,  innocent,  and  even  ignorant  of  any  crime,  to 
hell.  Against  such  a  plan,  the  moral  instincts  of  man  rebel.  It 
is  simply  impossible  that  they  should  accept  it  as  righteous. 

I  have  thus  stated  this  objection  in  its  full  force.  So  far  as 
The  several  answers.  ^  ^"^  aware,  there  have  been  five  several 
I.  TheWesleyan  is  in-  expedients  proposed  for  meeting  it.  i.  The 
adequate.  Wesley  an  says  :  the   injustice  would  appear, 

if  it  were  not  remedied  in  the  second  Adam,  in  whom  the  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  guilt  and  original  sin  are  so  far  repaired,  as  to 
give  common  sufficient  grace  to  every  child  of  Adam.  So  that 
the  two  dispensations  ought  to  be  viewed  together  ;  and  what  is 
harsh  in  one  will  be  compensated  in  the  other.  This  is  inad- 
missible for  many  reasons ;  chiefly  because  there  is  no  common 
sufficient  grace  ;  and  because  if  this  solution  be  adopted,  then 
the  gospel  will  be  of  debt,  and  not  of  grace. 

We    find    President    Edwards    endeavoring    to    evade   the 

objection,  by  asserting  that  our  federal  one- 

2.  President  Edwards'  vi     a  j    .„   •  u-j.  •     ^1     ^ 

also  inadequate.  "^^^  '^^^^'^  Adam  IS  no  more  arbitrary,  m  that 

it  was  constituted  by  God's  fiat,  than  our 
own  personal  identity :  for  that  also  is  constituted  only  by 
God's  institution.  If  it  be  asked  why  it  is  just  that  I  should 
be  punished  to-day,  for  a  sin  committed  last  year,  our  moral  in- 
stincts answer  :  Because  I  am  the  same  person  who  sinned.  But 
the  Pelagian  objection  urges  that  we  are  not  one  with  Adam  in 
any  real  sense,  and  therefore  cannot  be  justly  made  guilty  for 
Adam's  sin.  But,  says  Edwards  :  "  What  is  personal  identity  ; 
and  is  it  any  less  arbitrary  than  our  federal  identity  with 
Adam  ?"  He  answers  :  In  no  wise.  Because  our  existence  is 
dependent  and  successive.  Its  sustentation  is  a  perpetual 
recreation.  Its  succession  is  a  series  of  moments,  of  which  one 
moment's  existence  does  not  cause  or  produce  a  succeeding 
moment's,  not  being  coexistent  with  it,  as  cause  and  effect  must 
always  be.  Hence,  our  continued  identity  is  nothing  else  than 
a  result  of  the  will  of  God,  sovereignly  ordaining  to  restore  our 
existence  out  of  niliil,  by  a  perpetual  recreation,  at  the  begin- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  339 

ning  of  each  new  moment,  and  to  cause  in  us  a  consciousness 
which  seems  to  give  sameness.  I  will  venture  the  opinion  that 
no  man,  not  Edwards  himself,  ever  satisfied  himself,  by  this 
argument,  that  his  being  had  not  a  true,  intrinsic  continuity,  and 
a  real,  necessary  identity,  in  itself.  And  it  may  usually  be  con- 
cluded, that  when  any  scientific  hypothesis  conflicts  thus  with 
universal  common  sense,  it  is  sophistical.  In  this  case,  a  more 
correct  Metaphysics  has  justified  common  sense.  Our  belief 
in  our  own  identity  is  not  derived  from  our  remembered  con- 
sciousness, but  implied  in  it.  Belief  in  identity  is  an  a  priori, 
and  necessary  conception.  If  it  be  not  accepted  as  valid,  there 
is  no  valid  law  of  thought  at  all.  When  I  speak  of  the  I,  a 
true  and  intrinsic  continuity  of  being  is  necessarily  implied. 
Nor  is  it  true  that  because  the  moments  of  successive  time  are 
not  connected,  therefore  the  existence  which  we  necessarily 
conceive  of  as  flowing  on  in  time,  is  disconnected  in  its  momenta. 
We  have  seen  that  the  notion  of  a  perpetual  recreation  in  the 
providential  support  of  dependent  being  is  unproved.  Hence 
we  repudiate  this  Edwardean  speculation  as  worthless,  and  con- 
tradicted by  our  own  intuitions. 

Another  attempt  is  made  to  establish  a  real  identity  of 
Adam's  posterity  with  him,  so  as  to  lay  a 
■unsoimd  ^"  ^  ^^'^"^  ^  seeming  basis  for  the  imputation,  by  a  class 
of  theologians  represented  by  Dr.  S.  J.  Baird's 
"  Elohim  Revealed,"  who  claim  St.  Augustine  as  of  their 
party.  They  say,  we  are  made  guilty  of  Adam's  sin,  because 
"  we  sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him,"  not  merely  in  a  putative 
and  federal  sense,  but  really  and  truly.  Thus  we  are  involved 
in  a  true  and  proper  responsibility  for  the  sin  of  Adam,  because 
we  were  actually  in  him  seminally,  as  our  root.  They  teach 
that  we  become  sinners  in  him,  because  the  Nature  sinned  in 
him,  and  became  guilty  in  him,  as  well  as  depraved ;  and  this 
nature  we  have.  Our  nature  they  define  to  be  that  aggregate 
of  forces,  or  attributes  which  constitute  the  human  race  what  it 
is  ;  and  this,  they  hold,  is  not  an  abstraction  when  regarded  dis- 
tinctly from  all  individual  men,  but  an  objective  reality,  not 
indeed  a  substance,  yet  an  entity.  This  nature,  which  thus  sin- 
ned, and  became  guilty  and  depraved  in  Adam's  act,  is  trans- 
ferred as  a  real  germ,  to  every  human  being  from  him  ;  and  hence 
depravity  and  guilt  go  along.  This  theory,  while  not  exactly 
mediaeval  Realism,  is  certainly  something  near  akin  to  it ;  and 
the  objections  are  of  the  same  kind.  That  the  phrase,  human 
nature,  expresses  anything  more  than  a  complex  conception  of 
our  thought,  when  abstracted  from  any  one  and  every  one  human 
person,  is  untrue.  This  nature,  they  say,  is  the  aggregate  of 
all  the  forces  which  characterize  man  as  man.  But  have  those 
forces,  each  one,  separate  existence,  as  abstracted  from  all  the 
individual  men  whom  they  characterize  ?  Has  the  attribute  of 
risibility,  e.  g.   separate  existence  from  each  and  every  risible 


340  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

being?  Obviously  not.  How  then  can  the  aggregate  of  these 
attributes?  Again  :  we  cannot  attach  the  idea  of  sin,  morahty, 
responsibiUty,  and  guilt  to  anything  but  a  personal  being.  If 
the  nature,  along  with  which  the  depravity  and  responsibility 
are  transmitted,  has  not  personality,  the  theory  does  not  help 
us  at  all.  But  if  you  give  it  personality,  have  you  not  gotten 
back  to  the  common  soul  of  Averroes,  the  half-way  house 
of  Pantheism?  Third:  if  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  is 
grounded  solely  on  the  fact  that  the  nature  we  bear  sinned  and 
was  corrupted  in  him,  must  it  not  follow  that  Christ's  human 
nature  is  also  corrupt,  inasmuch  as  it  was  made  guilty  ?  And 
indeed  is  not  our  obeying  and  atoning  in  Him,  through  the  com- 
munity of  the  nature  that  obeyed  and  atoned,  precisely  as  real 
and  intrinsic,  as  our  sinning  and  corrupting  ourselves  in  Adam  ? 
For  these  reasons,  we  must  reject  this  explanation  as  untrue,  if 
anything  more  be  meant  by  it,  than  a  strong  way  of  stating  the 
vital  truth,  .that  imputation  is  partly  grounded  on  the  fact  Adam 
was  the  natural  head  of  the  race. 

The    fourth    solution    attempted    for    the    great   objection, 

brings  us  to  the    nth  question:  the  scheme 

II.   Mediate  Impu-    ^f  j^ediate  imputation.     The  author  and  his- 

tation.  r      1    •  rn     •  i  i    i  -t^ 

tory  oi  this  are  sumciently  stated  by  1  urret- 
tin.  Placaeus  said  that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was  only 
mediate,  and  consequent  upon  our  participation  in  total  native 
depravity,  which  we  derive  by  the  great  law,  that  like  begets 
like.  We,  being  thus  depraved  by  nature,  and,  so  to  speak, 
endorsing  his  sin,  by  exhibiting  the  same  spirit  and  committing 
similar  acts,  it  is  just  in  God  to  implicate  us  in  the  same  pun- 
ishments. 

Let  it  be  remarked,  first,  that  the  charge  made  in  the 
National  Synod  of  Charenton,  was,  that  Placaeus  had  denied 
all  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt,  and  had  made  original  sin  con- 
sist exclusively  in  subjective  depravity.  This  is  precisely  what 
the  Synod  condemned.  It  was  to  evade  this  censure,  that  he 
invented  the  distinction  between  an  "  antecedent  and  immedi- 
ate imputation "  of  Adam's  guilt,  which  he  denied,  and  a 
"  mediate  and  subsequent  imputation,"  which  he  professed  to 
hold.  It  appears  then,  that  this  invention  was  no  part  of  the 
theology,  of  the  Reformed  churches,  and  had  never  been  heard 
of  before.  So  thought  Dr.  A.  Alexander,  (Princeton  Review, 
Oct.  1839.)  The  distinction  seems  to  have  been  a  ruse 
designed  to  shelter  himself  from  censure,  and  to  lay  a  snare  for 
his  accusers.  It  was  unfortunate  that  they,  like  his  chief  oppo- 
nent, Andrew  Rivet,  fell  into  it,  by  advocating  the  "  antecedent 
and  immediate  imputation,"  as  the  only  true  view.  It  docs  not 
appear  to  me  that  those  who,  with  Rivet,  have  laboured  to 
show  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Symbols,  have 
at  all  proved  their  point.  The  distinction  is,  like  that  of  the 
Supralapsarian    and    Infralapsarian,   an  attempted  over-refine- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  34I 

ment,  which  should  never  have  been  made,  which  explained 
nothing,  and  whose  coroharies  increased  the  difficulties  of  the 
subject. 

Turrettin,  and  those  who  assert  the  "  antecedent  immedi- 
ate imputation,"  charge  that  the  scheme  of  Placaeus  is  only 
Arminianism  in  disguise,  and  that  it  really  leaves  no  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  guilt  at  all ;  inasmuch  as  they  say  it  leaves  the 
personal  guilt  of  the  child's  own  subjective  corruption,  as  the 
real  ground  of  all  the  penal  infliction  incurred  by  original  sin. 
While  these  objections  seem  just  in  part,  I  would  add  two 
others :  First.  Placaeus,  like  the  lower  Arminian,  seems  to 
offer  the  fact  that  God  should  have  extended  the  law  "  like  begets 
like,"  to  man's  moral  nature,  as  an  explanation  of  original  sin. 
This,  as  I  urged  before,  is  only  obtruding  the  fact  itself  as 
an  explanation  of  the  fact.  To  extend  this  law  of  nature  to 
responsible  persons,  is  an  ordination  of  God.  The  question  is : 
on  what  judicial  basis  does  this  ordination  rest?  Second: 
Placaeus'  scheme  is  false  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  in  that  it  rep- 
resents Adam's  posterity  as  having,  in  God's  view,  an  actual, 
antecedent,  depraved  existence,  at  least  for  a  moment,  before 
they  passed  therefor  under  condemnation  ;  whereas  the  Scrip- 
tures represent  them  as  beginning  their  existence  condemned, 
as  well  as  depraved.     See  Eph.  2:3. 

In  opposition  to  this  scheme,  Turrettin  states  the  view  of 
immediate  imputation,  which  has  since  been 
^^Immediate  Imputa-  ^^f^^^^  ^nd  asserted  in  its  most  rigid  sharp- 
ness by  the  Princeton  school.  It  boldly 
repudiates  every  sense  in  which  we  really  or  actually  sinned  in 
Adam,  and  admits  no  other  than  merely  the  representative 
5ense  of  a  positive  covenant.  It  says  that  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
first  sin,  which  was  personally  nobody's  but  Adam's  own,  is 
sovereignly  imputed  to  his  posterity.  Depravity  of  nature  is  a 
part  of  the  penalty  of  death,  due  to  Adam's  sin,  and  is  visited 
on  Adam's  children  purely  as  the  penal  consequence  of  the 
putative  guilt  they  bear.  For  sin  may  be  the  punishment  of 
sin.  Very  true,  after  depravity  of  nature  thus  becomes  person- 
ally theirs,  it  also  brings  an  addition  of  personal  guilt,  for  which 
they  are  thenceforward  punished,  as  well  as  for  actual  trans- 
gressions. The  grounds  for  this  statement  are  chiefly  these 
two  :  I.  That  Rom.  v  :  12-20  asserts  an  exact  parallel  between 
our  federal  relation  to  Adam  and  to  Christ,  so  that,  as  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness  to  us,  conceived  as  per- 
sonally unrighteous,  goes  before  procuring  our  justification, 
and  then  ah  sanctifying  grace  is  bestowed  working  personal 
sanctification,  as  purchased  by  Christ's  righteousness  for  us ; 
so,  we  must  conceive  Adam's  guilt  imputed  to  us,  we  being 
conceived  as,  in  the  first  instance,  personally  guiltless,  but  for 
that  guilt ;  and  then  depravity  given  us,  working  personal  sin 
and  guilt,  as  the  mischievous   purchase   of  Adam's  federal  act 


342  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

for  US.  And,  as  the  parallel  must  be  exact,  if  this  view  of 
original  sin  be  rejected,  then  the  view  of  justification  must  be 
modified  "to  suit;"  making  it  consist  first  in  an  infusion  of 
personal  righteousness  in  the  believer,  and  then  the  consequent 
accounting  to  us  of  Christ's  righteousness.  But  that  is  pre- 
cisely the  Romish  justification.  2.  The  connection  between 
the  second  Adam  and  His  believing  people,  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  includes  an  imputation  which  is  the  exact  counterpart  of 
that  of  the  first  Adam's  guilt.  This  is  the  two-fold  imputation 
of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  His  righteousness  to  us.  But  the 
former  of  these  is  strictly  an  imputation  of  peccatitni  aliemiDi 
to  Christ;  and  the  latter  is  an  immediate  imputation  of  His 
righteousness  to  us.  Hence,  if  we  deny  this  scheme  of  antece- 
dent, immediate  imputation,  we  must  give  up  salvation  by  impu- 
ted righteousness,  and  there  remains  no  way  of  escape  for  sinners. 

I  propose  to  dwell  upon  this  question  a  little  more  than  its 
intrinsic  importance  deserves.  Having  pronounced  it  a  useless 
and  erroneous  distinction,  I  might  be  expected  to  dismiss  it 
with  scant  notice.  But  it  receives  an  incidental  importance 
from  the  important  truths  connected  with  it.  These  are,  most 
prominently,  the  difficulties  concerning  the  righteousness  of 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt,  and  also,  the  nature  of  impu- 
tation in  general,  justification,  union  to  Christ,  God's  provi- 
dence in  visiting  the  sins  of  parents  on  children,  (Ex.  xx  : 
5,)  and  the  manner  in  which  the  ethical  reason  should  be 
treated,  when  it  advances  objections  against  revealed  truth. 

I  sustain  my  position,  then,  that  this  distinction  between 
"  mediate,"  and  "  immediate  "  imputation  should  never  have 
been  made,  by  showing  that  it  causelessly  aggravates  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  awful  doctrine  of  original  sin,  exaggerating  need- 
lessly the  angles  of  a  subject  which  is,  at  best,  sufficiently 
mysterious ;  that  the  arguments  by  which  the  immediate  impu- 
tation must  be  sustained  misrepresent  the  doctrines  of  the 
spiritual  union  and  justification;  and  especially,  that  it  is  false 
to  the  facts  of  the  case,  in  a  mode  the  counterpart  of  Placaeus'. 
It  represents  the  child  of  Adam  as  having  a  separate,  unde- 
praved,  personal  existence,  at  least  for  an  instant;  until  from 
innocent,  it  becomes  depraved  by  God's  act,  as  a  penal  conse- 
quence of  Adam's  guilt  imputed  as  peccatwn  aliemnn  solely.  * 
But  in  fact,  man  now  never  has  any  personal  existence  at  all, 
save  a  depraved  existence.  As  he  enters  being  condemned,  so 
he  enters  it  depraved.  This  over-refinement  thus  leads  us  to 
an  error  in  the  statertient  of  fact,  which  matches  that  resulting 
from  the  opposite  scheme.  Does  not  this  show  very  clearl}-, 
that  the  distinction  should  never  have  been  made  ?  And  can 
those  who  advocate  the  "  immediate,  precedaneous  imputation," 

*  That  the  drift  of  the  scheme  makes  the  infant  soul  initially  pure,  may  be  seen 
from  Hodge  on  Rom.  v  :  13.  Theol.  vol.  2,  jd^).  210,  203.  Thornwell,  vol.  1,  pp.  346,. 
34.7,  349.     Chalmers'  Theo.  Institutes,  vol.  i,  pp.  485  and  497. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY, 


343 


after  applauding  the  refutation  of  Placaeus'  scheme  by  the  par- 
allel argument,  justly  recoil  from  its  application  to  themselves? 
But  it  is  argued,  that  since  the  imputation  of  our  guilt  to 
Christ  is  an  immediate  imputation  of  pcccatimi  alicnum, 
grounded  in  His  community  of  nature  with  His  people,  the 
parallelism  of  the  two  doctrines  shuts  us  up  to  a  similar  impu- 
tation of  Adam's  guilt  to  us.  I  reply :  the  cases  indisputably 
differ  in  two  vital  respects.  It  may  be  asked  if  both  covenants 
do  not  rest  on  the  principle  of  imputation?  The  answer  is,  of 
course,  yes ;  both  covenants  involve  the  principle,  that  God 
may  justly  transfer  guilt  from  one  moral  agent  to  another, 
under  certain  conditions.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  He  will 
do  this  under  any  conditions  whatever.*  Does  any  one  sup- 
pose, for  instance,  that  God  would  have  condemned  holy 
Gabriel  for  Satan's  sin,  without  any  assent,  complicity  or 
knowledge,  on  the  part  of  the  former  ?  But  we  shall  find  that 
the  cases  of  Adam  and  Christ  are  conditioned  differently  in 
two  important  respects.  First :  Christ's  bearing  our  imputed 
guilt  was  conditioned  on  His  own  previous,  voluntary  consent. 
See  Jno.  x  :  i8.  All  theologians,  so  far  as  I  know,  regard  this 
as  essential  to  a  just  imputation  of  peccatimi  aliemtm  directly 
to  Him.  See,  for  instance.  Dr.  Thornwell's  Mission  Sermon  of 
1856.  "It"  (Christ's  covenant  with  the  Father),  "binds  not  by 
virtue  of  a  right  to  command,  but  by  virtue  of  a  consent 
to  obey."  Butler's  Analogy,  pt.  II,  chap.  5,  §  7.  Owen 
on  Justif.  p.  194.  Chalmers'  Theol.  Inst.,  vol.  I,  p.  498.) 
If  a  man  were  to  hold  that  the  Father  would  have  made 
this  imputation  of  another's  guilt  upon  His  Son,  in  spite 
of  the  Son's  exercising  His  legitimate  autocracy  to  refuse  and 
decline  it,  I  should  consider  that  man  past  reasoning  with. 
But  Adam's  infant  children  receive  the  imputation,  when  they 
are  incapable  of  a  rational  option  or  assent  about  it.  The 
other  difference  in  the  two  cases,  (which  it  seems  amazing  any 
one  can  overlook,)  is  the  one  pointed  out  in  Rom.  v  :  16-19, 
and  vi  :  23.  For  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  condemnation  ; 
but  the  free  gift  (verse  15,  "gift  by  grace  ")  is  of  many  offences 
unto  iustification."  The  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  was  a  trans- 
action of  strict,  judicial  righteousness ;  the  other  transaction 
was  one  of  glorious,  free  grace.  Now,  can  any  righteous  judge 
be  imagined,  who  would  allow  himself  equal  latitude  in  his 
judicial  convictions,  which  he  claims  in  his  acts  of  voluntary 
beneficence?  Would  not  the  righteous  magistrate  answer,  that 
in  condeming,  he  felt  himself  restricted  by  the  exact  merits  of 
the  parties ;  but  that  in  giving,  he  felt  himself  free  to  transcend 
their  merits,  and  bestow  what  his  generous  impulses  prompted  ? 
It  may  be  praiseworthy  to  dispense  blessings  above  the  deserts 
of  the  beneficiaries;   it  cannot  be  other  than  injustice  to  dis- 


*  See  Hodge's  Theol.  vol.  2,  p.  196.     Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  9. 


344  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

pense  penalties  beyond  the  deserts  of  the  culprits.  We  thus 
find  that  the  imputation  to  us  from  Adam,  and  from  us  to 
Christ,  are  unavoidably  conditioned  in  different  ways  in  part ; 
in  other  respects  they  are  analogous. 

Our  next  point  is  founded  on  the  admission,  in  which  we 
are  all  agreed,  that  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  us,  is  in 
part  grounded,  essentially,  in  the  community  of  nature.  But  with 
which  nature  of  Adam,  are  we  united  by  the  tie  of  race ;  the 
fallen,  or  the  unfallen  ?  Adam  had  no  offspring  until  after  he 
became  a  sinner.  Then  he  begat  even  Seth,  the  father  of  the 
holy  seed,  "in  his  own  likeness,  after  his  image."  (Gen. 
V  :  3.)  The  Scriptures,  from  Job  to  Christ,  assure  us,  that  the 
thing  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.  The  race  union  obvi- 
ously unites  us  with  Adam  fallen,  in  his  corrupted  nature. 
Hence  we  argue,  that  if  this  race  union  is  one  of  the  essential 
grounds  of  the  imputation,  it  cannot  be  antecedent  to  that  sub- 
jective corruption  of  nature,  on  which  it  is  partly  grounded. 
This  reasoning  has  been  felt  as  so  forcible,  that  the  advocates 
of  immediate  imputation  have  found  it  necessary  to  study 
evasions.  One  is,  to  argue  that  our  federal  union  was  with  the 
nature  of  Adam  unfallen,  because  the  moment  he  fell,  the  cov- 
enant of  works  was  abrogated.  I  reply :  Not  so ;  for  if  that 
covenant  was  then  abrogated,  it  is  strange  that  we  are  still 
suffering  the  penalty  of  its  breach !  The  true  statement  is, 
that  the  broken  covenant  still  remains  in  force,  against  all  not 
in  the  second  Adam,  as  a  rule  of  condemnation ;  its  breach  by 
our  representative  only  made  it  ineffectual  as  a  rule  of  life. 
Another  evasion  is,  to  say,  that  our  Nature  had  its  representa- 
tion and  probation  in  Adam,  before  any  of  us  had  a  personal 
existence,  and  while  the  nature  in  him  was  unfallen.  I  reply 
by  asking:  What  sense  do  the  words,  "our  Nature,"  have  in 
this  statement  ?  Is  it  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  the 
Nature,  that  we  are  debating  ?  or  of  its  imputation  to  persons  ? 
Now,  it  is  only  a  metaphor  to  speak  of  beings  as  bearing  a  rela- 
tion to  each  other,  while  one  of  them,  (Adam's  descendant)  is 
non-existent  as  yet.  Only  existing  beings  sustain  actual  rela- 
tions. The  only  other  sense,  in  which  the  relation  between  me 
and  Adam  had  an  actual  being  before  I  existed,  was  as  it  stood 
in  God's  decree.  This  may  be  illustrated'  by  the  counterpart 
doctrine  of  justification.  The  Conf.  chap  ii,  §  4,  says:  "God 
did  from  all  eternity  decree  to  justify  all  the  elect.  *  *  * 
nevertheless  they  are  not  justified  until  the  Holy  Spirit  doth,  in 
due  time,  actually  apply  Christ  unto  them."  By  parity  of  rea- 
soning I  hold,  that  God  did,  from  all  eternity,  decree  to  con- 
demn all  men  federally  connected  with  Adam  in  his  fall , 
nevertheless,  they  are  not  condemned  actually,  until  they  act- 
ually begin  to  exist  in  natural  and  federal  union  with  their 
fallen  head.     But  this  is  almost  a  truism. 

Hence  we  pass  to  a  corresponding  argument  from  the  de- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  345 

pendence  of  the  actual  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness 
to  us  upon  a  certain  union  between  Him  and  us.  All  again 
admit  this.  What  species  of  union  is  it?  The  spiritual  union. 
This  question  and  answer,  like  the  touch-stone,  reveal  the 
unsoundness  of  the  opposing  logic.  The  student  will  remem- 
ber how  it  argues :  That  inasmuch  as  we  must  make  an  exact 
parallel  between  the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  and  Christ's 
righteousness,  we  must  hold  that  the  imputing  of  the  guilt  of 
Adam's  first  sin  precedaneously  and  immediately  as  solely 
peccatum  alienum  must  go  before,  upon  the  offspring  conceived 
as  so  far  personally  innocent :  and  then,  we  must  consider  his 
subjective  depravity  as  following  that  putative  sentence,  and  as 
the  penal  result  thereof  Else,  the  symmetry  of  the  two  cases 
will  lead  us  from  Placaeus'  ground,  to  conceive  of  justification 
thus :  that  God  finds  in  the  sinner  an  inherent  righteousness, 
which  mediates  the  imputation  to  him  of  the  subsequent  right- 
eousness of  Christ  for  his  full  acceptance.  But  this  is  virtually 
the  vicious.  Popish  view  of  justification.  True,  I  reply  :  this 
explodes  Placaeus:  but  it  also  explodes  their  own  scheme. 
For  if  we  make  justification  correspond,  by  an  exact  sym- 
metry, to  the  scheme  of  their  "immediate,  antecedent  impu- 
tation," then  we  must  get  this  doctrine  of  justification  :  viz. 
The  sinner,  while  still  in  his  depravity,  get's  Christ's  righteous- 
ness directly,  gratuitously  and  antecedently,  imputed  to  him ; 
and  then,  as  part  of  the  consequent  reward  of  that  imputed 
merit,  has  regeneration  wrought,  infusing  the  sanctified  nature 
of  his  redeeming  Head  into  his  soul.  But  as  faith  is  in  order 
to  justification,  this  speculation  must  lead  us  to  the  following 
order.  First,  the  convicted  sinner,  while  unrenewed,  exercises 
the  initial  saving  faith.  Second,  he  is  thereupon  justified. 
Third,  he  then  procures,  as  one  of  the  fruits  of  the  reconcili- 
ation, a  holy  heart,  like  his  Saviour's.  Now,  a  moderate  tinc- 
ture of  theology  will  teach  any  one  that  this  is  precisely  the 
Arminian  Theory  of  justification.  And  a  little  reflection  will 
show,  that  he  who  makes  faith  precede  regeneration  in  the 
order  of  causation,  must,  if  consistent,  be  a  synergist.  Thus  it 
appears  that  this  scheme  cuts  off  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
justification  as  rigidly  as  it  does  Placaeus.  That  doctrine,  as 
none  have  stated  more  clearly  than  Dr.  Hodge,  [as  Theol.  vol. 
2,  p.  195,]  distinguishes  between  inherent  and  legal  righteous- 
ness. The  latter  no  justified  sinner  has  of  his  own,  either  at 
the  moment  he  is  justified,  or  ever  after.  The  former,  every 
believer  partakes,  through  the  grace  of  effectual  calling,  in 
order  to  the  faith  by  which  he  receives  justification.  All  intel- 
ligent Calvinists,  so  far  as  I  know,  teach  that  the  application  of 
redemption  begins  with  effectual  calling.  The  order  they  give 
is  this  :  First,  regeneration,  implanting  Christ's  spiritual  life,  by 
which  the  sinner  is  enabled  to  believe  :  Second,  faith,  and 
then  justification.     In  short,  the  believer  is  not  first  justified  in 


346  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

order  to  become  a  partaker  of  Christ's  nature.  He  is  made  a 
partaker  of  that  nature,  in  order  to  be  justified.  The  vital 
union  is  both  legal  and  spiritual :  community  in  Christ's  right- 
eousness is  one  fruit ;  holy  living  is  the  other. 

Once  more  :  All  Calvinists  will  concur  with  Dr.  Hodge  in 
stating,  [Theol.  vol.  2,  pp.  196,  211],  that  since  the  ground  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  us  is  the  union  of  nature,  the 
consequences  of  the  fall  come  on  us  in  the  same  order  as  on 
Adam.  But  now,  I  ask,  was  Adam's  depravity  solely  a  penal 
consequence  of  his  first  transgression?  Surely  not;  for  unless 
a  depraved  motive  had  prompted  his  act,  it  would  not  have 
carried  guilt.  The  intention  of  the  crime  is  what  qualifies  the 
act  as  criminal.  In  Adam's  case,  the  subjective  depravation 
(self-induced)  and  the  guilt,  were  simultaneous  and  mutually 
involved.  Then,  according  to  the  concession  made,  the  scheme 
of  immediate,  precedaneous  imputation  is  surrendered.  We 
return,  then,  to  the  consistent  statement  with  which  the  discus- 
sion of  original  sin  began  :  That  the  federal  and  representa- 
tive union  between  Adam  and  his  offspring,  in  the  covenant  of 
works,  was  designed  to  result  thus  :  whatever  legal  status,  and 
whatever  moral  character  Adam  should  win  for  himself  under 
his  probation,  that  status,  and  that  character  each  of  his  chil- 
dren by  nature  should  inherit,  on  entering  his  existence. 

I  have  not  appealed  to  the  illustrative  cases  in  which  God 
visits  the  iniquities  of  parents  on  their  children ;  because  I  do 
not  regard  them  as  strictly  parallel  to  our  federal  union  with 
Adam.  Our  parents  now  are  not  acting  for  us  under  a  cove- 
nant of  works.  In  this  sense  they  are  not  our  federal  represen- 
tatives, as  Adam  was.  But  as  the  attempt  has  been  made  to 
wield  these  cases  against  me,  I  willingly  meet  them.  It  has 
been  said,  for  instance,  that  Achan's  infant  children,  incapable 
of  the  sin  of  political  treason  and  sacrilege,  were  put  to  death 
for  their  father's  guilt.  Does  any  one  suppose,  that  they  would 
have  died  by  God's  order,  if  they  had  been  as  pure  before  Him, 
as  the  humanity  of  the  infant  Jesus?  Hardly!  The  doctrine 
as  taught  by  God,  (Deut.  v  :  9  ;  Matt,  xxiii  :  32-35)  is,  that  He 
now  visits  the  guilt  of  sinful  parents  on  sinful  children.  The 
Pharisees'  filling  up,  by  their  own  sins,  the  measure  of  their 
fathers,  was  the  condition  of  their  inheriting  the  penalty  of  all 
the  righteous  blood  shed  from  Abel  to  Zacharias.  This  Tur- 
rettin  teaches,  Loc.  ix  :  Qu,  9,  against  the  interest  of  his  own 
erroneous  logic.  Thus,  we  find,  in  this  extensive  class  of  prov- 
idential dealings,  cases  of  what  Dr.  Hodge  correctly  deems, 
true  imputation.  But  the  conditions  arc  not  identical  with 
those  which  he  claims  for  Adam's  case. 

I  have  said  that  the  attempts  made  by  Rivet  and  other 
later  divines,  to  prove  that  their  doctrine  of  immediate,  prece- 
daneous imputation  is  that  of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  sym- 
bols, are  vain.     My    conviction    is,  that  this  scheme,  like  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  34/ 

supralapsarian,  is  a  novelty  and  an  over-refinement,  alien  to  the 
true  current  of  the  earlier  Reformed  theology,  and  some  of  Pla- 
caeus'  day  were  betrayed  into  the  exaggeration  by  the  snare  set 
for  them  by  his  astuteness,  and  their  own  over-zeal  to  expose 
him.  I  beg  leave  to  advance  one  or  two  witnesses  in  support. 
Stapfer,  who  has  been  erroneously  quoted,  as  on  Placaeus'  side, 
says :  (Vol.  iv ;  ch.  xvii :  §  y8.  Note.)  "  The  whole  controversy 
they"  (impugners  of  the  justice  of  imputation,)  "  have  with  us 
about  this  matter,  evidently  arises  from  this  :  that  they  suppose 
the  mediate  and  the  immediate  imputation  are  distinguished 
one  from  the  other,  not  only  in  the  manner  of  conception,  but 
in  reality.  And  so  indeed,  they  consider  imputation  only  as 
immediate,  and  abstractedly  from  the  mediate,  when  yet  our 
divines  suppose  that  neither  ought  to  be  considered  separately 
from  the  other.  Therefore  I  choose  not  to  use  any  such  dis- 
tinction. *  *  *  While  I  have  been  writing  this  note,  I  have 
consulted  all  the  systems  of  divinity  which  I  have  by  me,  that  I 
might  see  what  was  the  true  and  genuine  opinion  of  our  chief 
divines  in  this  affair,  and  I  found  they  were  of  the  same  mind 
with  me."  Markius,  in  DeMoor,  says :  If  Placaeus  meant 
nothing  more  by  mediate  imputation,  than  that  ''  liominuni  na- 
toriun  actualem  piuiitioneiJi  zdterioreni  non  fieri  mido  intuitu 
AdamiccE  transgressionis,  absque  interveniente  etiaui  proptia  cor- 
ruptione,  et  fliientibus  Innc  sceletibus  variis,  ncminem  ortJiodox- 
onein  posset  habere  obloquentein.'"  DeMoor  quotes  Vogelsang, 
(Com.  vol.  iii  :  p.  275,)  as  saying  :  "  Certe  neminem  sempiterua 
subire  supplicia  propter  inobedientia  protoplasti,  nisi  mediante 
cognata  perversitate."  Calvin  in  his  Inst,  but  more  distinctly 
in  his  exposition  of  Rom.  v:  12-19,  teaches  just  the  view  I 
have  given.  This  much  belaboured  passage  has  been  often 
claimed,  as  clearly  teaching  the  immediate,  antecedent  impu- 
tation. Thus  Dr.  Hodge  assumes.  He  claims  that  the  correct 
interpretation  of  this  passage,  demands  his  view  of  the  exact 
identity  of  the  two  imputations,  in  the  Covenant  of  works,  and  of 
grace.  He  then,  reasoning  in  a  circle,  defends  his  interpre- 
tation chiefly  from  the  assumed  premise  of  that  identtiy.  The 
details  of  his  exposition  seem  to  be  more  akin  to  those  of  the 
Socinian  expositors,  and  of  Whitby,  than  of  the  old  Reformed. 
To  me  it  appears,  that  Calvin  shows  a  truer  insight  into  the 
scope  of  the  Apostle's  discourse,  and  gives  more  satisfactory 
meanings  of  the  particular  phrases.  The  question  is  urged  : 
Since  Paul  illustrates  justification  by  original  sin,  must  we  not 
suppose  an  exact  parallel  between  the  illustration  and  the  thing 
illustrated  ?  I  reply  :  We  must  suppose  so  real  a  resemblance 
as  to  make  the  illustration  a  fair  one  ;  but  this  does  not  include 
an  exact  parallel.  Few  scriptural  illustrations  present  an  exact 
one.  I  have  showed  that  Dr.  Hodge's  effort  here  to  maintain 
one,  is  deceptive  ;  and  that  if  it  were  faithfully  carried  out,  it 
would  land  us  all  in  Arminianism,  (where  Whitby  stood).     The 


348  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Apostle  himself,  in  verse  13-17,  makes  exceptions  to  the  exact- 
ness of  his  own  parallel !  In  view  of  these  facts,  and  of  the 
silence  of  our  Confession  touching  the  exaggerated  scheme,  we 
treat  the  charge  that  we  are  making  a  defection  from  Calvinism 
by  preferring  the  old,  Calvinistic  doctrine  to  the  new  one  of 
Princeton,  with  the  entire  indifference  it  deserves. 

But  it  is  time  to  return  to  the  rationalistic  objection 
against  the  justice  of  imputation,  which  has  been  the  occasion 
of  the  speculations  reviewed.  (See  p.  338,).  Dr.  Hodge 
seems  to  dispose  of  this  objection,  by  simply  disregarding  it. 
The  amount  of  satisfaction  he  offers  to  the  recalcitrant  reason, 
is :  God  makes  this  immediate  imputation,  and  therefore  it  must 
be  right,  whatever  reason  says.  Whether  this  is  wise,  or  prudent, 
or  just  logic,  we  shall  see.  All  the  other  writers  I  have  read, 
who  incline  to  the  extreme  view,  betray  a  profound  sense  of 
this  difficulty,  by  their  resort  to  uneasy  expedients  to  evade  it. 
(We  have  seen  those  of  Wesley  and  of  Edwards  :  who  belong 
to  different  schools  of  opinion  from  Turrettin,  and  from  each 
other).  But  these  evasions,  if  they  satisfy  themselves,  do  not 
satisfy  each  other.  That  adopted  by  Dr.  Hodge,  from  Turret- 
tin,  (Loc.  ix  :  Qu.  9  :  §  14  ;  Theology,  Vol.  ii :  p.  21 1),  is,  that  the 
penalty  we  incur  from  Adam's  imputed  guilt  is,  (a)  privative,  and 
(b),  positive.  The  former,  involving  simply  the  lack  of  original 
righteousness,  is  visited  on  us  by  the  immediate,  precedaneous 
imputation.  The  latter,  carrying  spiritual  death  and  all  posi- 
tive miseries,  is  imputed  mediately.  Though  the  second  insepa- 
rably follows  the  first,  yet  they  are  to  be  thus  distinguished. 
Dr  Thornwell  effectually  explodes  this  evasion  for  us.  (Works, 
Vol.  I  :  p.  333).  He  asks  :  if  the  child  of  Adam  is  initially 
pure,  is  there  any  less  difficulty  in  a  just  and  Holy  God's  treat- 
ing him  as  a  sinner,  than  in  His  causing  him  to  be  a  sinner  ? 
And  if  this  penal  treatment  (on  imputation  of  pcccatum  aliciiinii) 
does  cause  him  to  be  a  sinner,  have  we  not  both  the  difficulties 
on  our  hands?  For,  second:  the  distinction  between  a  priva- 
tive, and  a  positive  depravation  is,  for  a  Calvinist,  utterly  incon- 
sistent. Turrettin,  when  arguing  against  Pelagians  and  Pa- 
pists, has  himself  proved  that  the  privative  state  of  a  lack  of 
original  righteousness  is,  ipso  facto,  positive  depravity.  So 
says  common  sense.  That  a  rational  creature  of  God,  knowing 
His  perfections,  and  His  own  accountability,  should  fail  to  love 
and  reverence  Him,  is  itself  to  be  in  a  positively  unholy  state. 
I  add,  third,  that  even  if  the  distinction  were  allowed,  yet  if 
from  the  privative,  the  positive  depravation  unavoidably  and 
naturally  follows,  then  the  same  judicial  act  which  inflicts  the 
one  has  also  inflicted  the  other.  The  executioner,  who  swings 
off  the  felon  to  be  hanged,  from  the  platform  of  tlie  gibbet, 
does  thereby  choke  him  to  death. 

Dr.  Thornwell,  in  turn,  after  looking  the  doctrine  of  imme- 
diate precedaneous  imputation  steadily  in  the  face,  finds  himself 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  349 

constrained  to  seek  a  palliation  for  its  difficulty,  in  the  same 
direction  from  which  he  had  sought  to  recall  Dr.  S.  J.  Baird  a 
few  years  before.  On  pp.  349,  350,  of  his  Lectures,  he  says: 
"  On  these  grounds  I  am  free  to  confess,  that  I  cannot  escape 
from  the  doctrine,  however  mysterious,  of  a  generic  unity  in 
man,  as  the  true  basis  of  the  representative  economy  in  the 
covenant  of  works.  The  human  race  is  not  an  aggregate  of 
independent  atoms,  but  constitutes  an  organic  whole,  with  a  com- 
mon life  springing  from  a  common  ground.  *  *  *  There 
is  in  man  what  we  may  call  a  common  nature.  That  common 
nature  is  not  a  mere  generalization  of  logic,  but  a  substantive 
reality."  Thus,  the  stress  of  the  rationalistic  objection  appears 
to  him  so  heavy,  that  it  drives  him  to  the  solution  he  had  before 
refuted.  For  the  reasons  stated  on  p.  339,  this  resort  appears 
to  me  invalid.  It  is  true,  Adam  was  "  the  root  of  all  mankind." 
This  race  unity  is,  as  our  Confession  states,  an  all-important 
condition  of  the  federal  union.  But  apart  from  each  human 
person,  we  see  in  this  race-unity  no  moral,  and  still  less  any 
personal  entity,  to  be  the  subject  of  responsibility. 

The  difficulty  then  recurs :  Is  the  doctrine  of  original  sin 
founded  on  that  which  seems  to  the  natural  conscience  an 
intrinsic  injustice,  punishing  innocent  persons,  without  their 
consent,  for  another  man's  sin  ?  Let  the  student  bear  in  mind, 
that  we  have  no  intention  of  denying  the  mysteriousness  of  the 
divine  dispensation  of  the  fall  of  our  race  in  their  first  father. 
It  is  an  inscrutable  providence.  But  while  the  view  I  sustain, 
leaves  it  enveloped  in  a  mystery  which  the  wisest  and  best  of 
us  most  clearly  see  will  never  be  solved  in  this  world ;  the 
advantage  I  claim  is,  that  it  leaves  the  doctrine  in  a  state  where 
no  man  can  convict  it  of  injustice.  This  advantage  appears  in 
two  ways.  First :  man  reasons  chiefly  by  parallel  instances  ; 
his  reasoning  is  comparison.  Consequently,  in  a  case  wholly 
unique,  where  there  is  no  parallel,  while  he  may  not  compre- 
hend, he  cannot  convict  of  injustice.  The  case  is  above  his 
grasp ;  he  has  no  experimental  scales  in  which  to  weigh  it. 
Second :  our  fall  in  Adam,  as  properly  stated,  lacks  the  essen- 
tial point  wherein  the  caviller  finds,  in  the  instance  of  his  pre- 
tended parallel,  the  intrinsic  injustice.  But  it  is  evident,  on 
consideration,  that,  upon  the  theory  of  immediate  imputation, 
that  essential  point  is  yielded  to  the  caviller.  It  is,  that  the 
innocent  is  punished,  without  his  consent,  for  the  guilty.  Let 
us  suppose  the  case  usually  cited  for  illustration,  the  peaceful 
citizen  charged,  under  human  laws,  with  the  putative  guilt  of  a 
murder  to  which  he  had  not  consented.  This  injustice  is  indis- 
putable. But  let  us  see  what  is  involved  in  the  fact  of  per- 
sonal innocency  in  this  case ;  for  there  lies  the  basis  of  our 
moral  judgment  about  it.  It  means  that  this  peaceful  citizen 
has  complied  with  the  prohibitory  laws  of  his  country,  in 
refraining  from  all  injury  to  others'  lives.     But  a  law,  sustained 


350  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

by  sanction,  is  of  the  nature  of  a  covenant  with  the  citizens. 
The  man  who  has  actually  kept  the  law  has  thereby  earned  his 
covenanted  title  to  immunity.  This  is  what  this  man  means, 
by  claiming  his  innocency.  He  has  been  invested  by  the  cov- 
enant of  the  law  itself,  with  this  title  to  immunity,  before  the 
putative  murder  was  committed,  and  he  can  now  be  righteously 
divested  of  this  title  only  by  his  own  transgression.  To  impute 
to  this  man  now,  the  guilt  of  peccatiini  aiicninn,  divests  him  of 
this  pre-existent  righteous  title  to  immunity.  There  is  the 
impregnable  ground  upon  which  he  will  resist  the  charge. 

Now,  let  us  represent  imputation  as  the  Scriptures  do,  and 
the  sinner  fallen  in  Adam  has  no  such  argument  to  use.  He 
does  not  approach  the  judicial  issue  clothed  with  a  pre-existing, 
personal  title  to  favour,  derived  from  a  previous,  personal  rec- 
titude under  a  covenant  of  works.  For,  previous  to  his  con- 
demnation in  Adam,  he  has  no  personal,  innocent  existence, 
not  for  one  moment,  not  even  in  any  correct  order  of  thought ; 
for  he  has  had  no  actual  existence  at  all.  He  enters  existence 
depraved,  as  he  enters  it  guilty ;  he  enters  it  guilty  as  he  enters 
it  depraved.  This  is  the  amount  of  his  federal  union  with 
Adam ;  that  the  offspring  shall  have,  ab  initio,  the  same  legal 
status  and  moral  nature,  which  his  head  determined  for  him- 
self, by  his  acts  while  under  probation.  This  statement  is 
strictly  correspondent  to  the  facts  revealed  and  experienced. 
And  it  has  this  great  advantage,  that  it  leaves  the  sinner,  fallen 
in  Adam,  no  pretext  to  complain  that  he  has  been  stripped  of 
any  just  personal  title  to  immunity,  by  thus  bringing  him  under 
putative  guilt.  For  he  had  no  such  personal  title  to  be  stripped 
of,  seeing  he  had  no  personal  existence  at  all,  prior  to  the 
depravity  and  guilt.  This  dispensation  of  God,  then,  remains 
unique,  without  any  parallel  in  any  human  jurisprudence.  It 
is  solemn,  mysterious,  awful ;  but  it  is  placed  where  it  is  impos- 
sible to  convict  it  of  injustice  on  God's  part.  That  His  exer- 
cise of  His  sovereignty  in  this  strange  dispensation  is  holy, 
righteous,  benevolent,  and  wise,  we  have  this  sufficient  proof; 
that  He  has  given  His  own  Son,  in  free  grace,  to  repair  the  mis- 
chiefs which  human  sin  causes  under  the  case.  Let  us  remem- 
ber, that  the  covenant  of  paradise  was  liberal,  equitable,  and 
splendidly  beneficent  in  its  own  character.  Its  failure  was 
exclusively  man's  and  Satan's  fault.  God  has  not  been  the 
efficient  of  any  man's  sin  or  depravation,  but  only  the  permiss- 
ive Disposer :  the  only  efficients  of  both  evils  have  been  men 
and  their  spiritual  seducers.  In  the  great,  gospel  Remedy, 
God  is  real  Efficient.  • 

12.  That  one's  view  of  original  sin  will  be  decisive  of  his 
whole  system  of  theology,  is  obvious  from  the  familiar  truth ; 
that  the  remedy  is  determined  by  the  disease.  As  is  the  diag- 
nosis, so  will  be  the  medical  treatment.  If  the  Pelagian  view 
of  human  nature  prevails,  the  corresponding  view  of  its  regen- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  35  I 

eration  must  prevail.  Thus,  faith,  repentance,  and  the  other 
essential  graces  of  the  pew  life,  will  be  traced  to  the  human 
will  as  their  source.  Then,  the  office-work  of  the  Spirit  will  be 
degraded  ;  and  the  Socinian  result,  which  denies  His  personality 
will  be  natural.  The  analysis  of  Nestorianism  will  show  us 
also,  how  the  same  view  of  human  nature  and  of  free-agency, 
will  modify  the  doctrine  of  the  Hypostatic  Union,  preparing  the 
way  for.  a  belief  in  a  merely  human  Christ. 

But  if  the  scriptural  doctrines  of  native  depravity  and  fed- 
eral representation  be  firmly  held,  then  there  will  follow,  as  rea- 
sonable corollaries,  all  the  points  of  the  Calvinistic,  or  August- 
inian  scheme,  supernatural  regeneration,  unconditional  election, 
perseverance  in  grace,  divinity  of  Christ,  and  personality  and 
■divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


LECTURE  XXX. 

LAW. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  In  what  senses  is  the  word  Law  used  in  Scripture? 
See  Concordances  and  Lexicons. 

2.  Is  the  law  of  God  written  on  the  natural  conscience  intuitively  ?     Wliat  the 
authority  of  this  natural  law?     Is  the  Decalogue  of  Moral  or  of  Positive  obligation? 

See  Turrettin,  Loc.  ix,  Qu.  i,  2.     Sensualistic  Philosophy  of  igtli  Cent.,  ch. 
12.     Dick,  Lect.  102. 

3.  If  the  Covenant  of  Works  is  now  inapplicable  for  us,  what  uses  has  the  law 
in  a  plan  of  salvation  by  grace  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  22,  25.     Calvin,  bk.  ii,  ch.  7.      Ridgely,  Qu.  94-97. 

4.  Recite  the  origin  of  the  Decalogue.     How  is  it  divided?     \\Tiat  are  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  it  is  to  be  interpreted  ? 

Calvin,  bk.  ii,  ch.  8.     Turretdn,  Qu,  5,  6.     Dick,  Lect.   102,  103.     Ridgeley, 
Qu.  98,  99. 

5.  Is  the  Decalogue  a  perfect  rule  of  life?     Did  Christ  abrogate  or  amend  any 
part  of  it  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  3,  4.     Dick  as  above.     Dr.  Ashbel  Green's  Lect.  34-36,   on 
Shorter  Catechism. 


T 


HE  word  "  Law,"  (nllin^  vofio:^)  is  employed  in   the    Scrip- 

T 

ture  with  a  certain  latitude  of  meaning,  but  always  carry- 

^  . .  ing  the  force  of   meaning  contained   in  the 

I.  Definitions.  1   -j  r  1    ,•  ■       •    1  t^-     , 

general  idea  01  a  regulative  principle,  rirst, 
it  sometimes  expresses  the  whole  of  Revelation,  as  in  Ps.  i  :  2. 
Second,  the  whole  Old  Testament,  as  in  Jno.  x  :  34.  Third, 
frequently  the  Pentateuch,  as  in  Luke  xxiv  :  44.  Fourth,  the 
preceptive  moral  law  (Prov.  xxviii  :  4;  Rom.  ii  :  14.  Fifth,  the 
ceremonial  code,  as  in  Heb.  x  :  i.  Sixth,  the  decalogue.  Matt. 
xxii  :  36-40.  Seventh,  a  ruling  power  in  our  nature,  as  in 
Rom.  vii  :  23-  Eighth,  the  covenant  of  works,  Rom.  vi  :  14. 
By  the  Law,  in  the  following  discussions,-  we  intend  the  precep- 
tive moral  law,  as  epitomized  in  the  decalogue. 


352  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

The  student  will  be  prepared  to  expect  my  answer  to  the 
second  point,  from  what  has  been  taught  of 
2.  Moral  Distinction    ^^^    eternity    of    moral    distinctions.     These 
Intrinsic.  ...•'.,  ,  ^  ,-,,, 

are  mtrmsic  m  that  class  ot  acts.      Ihey  are 

not  instituted  solely  by  the  positive  will  of  God,  but  are  en- 
joined by  that  will  because  His  infinite  mind  saw  them  to  be 
intrinsic  and  eternal.  In  a  word :  Duties  are  not  obligatory 
and  right  solely  because  God  has  commanded  them ;  but  He 
has  commanded  them  because  they  are  right.  Hence,  we  con- 
fidently expect  to  find  the  natural  powers  of  reason  and  con- 
science in  man  impressed  with  the  moral  distinction,  and  pro- 
nouncing it  intuitively. 

(a.)  From  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  represent  God  Him- 
self, at  least  in  one  particular,  as  bound  by  this  distinction  of 
right  and  wrong,  "  God  cannot  lie ;"  that  is,  the  eternal  perfec- 
tions of  His  own  mind  so  regulate  His  own  volitions  that  His 
will  certainly,  yet  freely,  refuses  all  error.     See  also  2  Tim.  ii :  13. 

(b.)  The  very  nature  of  a  creature  implies  rightful  subjec- 
tion to  a  Creator;  its  denial  would  be  utter  contradiction.  Thus 
the  law  of  our  reason  teaches  us,  that  the  creature  existing, 
these  moral  relations  cannot  but  exist,  whether  God  has  pub- 
lished them  in  positive  precepts,  or  not. 

(c.)  If  these  moral  distinctions  owed  their  origin  solely  to 
God's  positive  will,  no  distinction  could  be  drawn  between 
moral  and  positive  precepts.  The  prohibition,  "  Thou  shall  not 
bear  false  witness,"  would  be  exactly  like  this  :  "Thou  shalt 
not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk."  But  there  is  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  classes,  recognized  by  God  and  our  rea- 
son. 'Judgment,  mercy,  and  truth,'  are  pronounced  *  weightier 
matters  of  the  law,'  compared  with  tithing  mint,  anise,  and 
cummin. 

(d.)  If  there  were  no  cause,  save  God's  mere  will,  why  moral 
distinctions  were  drawn  as  they  are,  He  might  have  made 
treachery  a  virtue,  and  truth  a  crime,  &c.  Against  this  every 
moral  intuition  revolts.  Why  might  not  God  have  done  this  ? 
The  only  answer  is,  that  His  own  unchangeable  moral  perfec- 
tions made  it  impossible.  Just  so ;  it  is  admitted  that  the 
basis  of  the  moral  distinction  is  a  priori  to  all  volition  of  God  ; 
which  is  substantially  my  proposition.  And  last,  and  most 
conclusively  :  If  God's  mere  positive  volition  made  an  act  of 
the  creature  morally  right,  then  of  course  God  must  be  mor- 
ally right  in  entertaining  that  volition.  But  the  moral  character 
of  volitions  depends  wholly  on  that  of  the  principles  which 
prompt  them.  So  that,  we  see,  if  there  were  no  moral  distinc- 
tion a  priori  to  God's  mere  will,  God  could  have  no  moral 
character  in  acts  of  His  will. 

The    moral  distinction  being  then  intrinsic   and  eternal,  it 

follows    that    the  intuition  and  feeling  of  its 

onsequences.  oblieation  must  be  one  of  the  natural  endow- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  353 

ments  of  the  rational  creature  made  in  God's  image.  This 
obhgation  must  be  recognized  by  man's  conscience  as  natural 
and  moral,  and  not  merely  positive.  To  this  agree  the  Scrip- 
tures, Rom.  i  :  19-21  ;  ii  :  14,  15  ;  Acts  xiv  :  17.  And  these 
declarations  are  confirmed,  by  the  consensus  popnli  upon  the 
existence  of  a  moral  obligation,  and  its  main  outlines,  by  a 
multitude  of  the  facts  of  our  consciousness,  by  the  admissions 
of  Pagans.  But  here,  the  distinction  so  clearly  made  between 
moral  principia  and  conclusiones,  must  be  noted.  In  some  cases 
of  moral  obligation,  the  perception  and  verdict  of  conscience 
are  immediate.  In  other  cases,  they  are  deductive.  Should 
a  creature  obey  its  Creator?  To  this  the  sane  reason  answers 
intuitively,  Yes.  Should  the  borrower  pay  any  hire  for  the  use 
of  money  ?  To  this  the  mind  can  only  answer  deductively  ; 
certain  premises  must  be  known  to  the  understanding,  from 
which  the  moral  answer  must  be  by  deduction  drawn. 

If  the  moral  distinction,  is  thus  eternal  in  acts,  unchange- 
able in  God,  and  natural  in  man,  the  preceptive  law  receives  a 
new  dignity,  immutability,  and  sacredness.  Then  it  follows, 
also,  that  the  natural  conscience  is  God's  viceregent  in  man; 
and  its  dictates  must  be  obeyed,  or  guilt  arises.  But  when  we 
remember  that  the  light  in  man's  conscience  is  imperfect,  we 
see  that  it  is  not  true  that  this  faculty  is  a  sufficient  rule  of 
duty.  That  rule  is  found  in  God's  precepts  alone.  The  seem- 
ing paradox  arising  out  of  the  dictate  of  an  ill-informed  con- 
science has  been  already  considered,  in  lecture  X. 

It  has  beeen  asked,  if  the  Law  can  no  longer  be  a  cove- 

„  r    T         nant  of  life  to  fallen  sinners,  what  place  and 

3.     Uses     01     Law  .  ,  •  1  r        1 

under  Covenant  of  use  can  it  properly  have  m  a  plan  01  salva- 
Grace— The  Law  Im-  tion  by  efrace  ?  You  are  aware  that  there 
^  have    been,   in    ihe  Church,    errorists    called 

Antinomians,  who,  in  fact,  sought  to  exclude  the  law  from  their 
system,  asserting  that  since  it  is  no  longer  a  term  of  life,  since  it 
has  been  fully  satisfied  both  in  its  preceptive  and  penal 
demands  by  the  believer's  divine  Substitute,  it  can  have  no 
binding  force  upon,  and  no  application  to  him.  But  the 
view  I  have  given  of  the  Law,  as  the  necessary  and  unchang- 
ing expression  of  God's  rectitude,  shows  that  its  authority  over- 
moral  creatures  is  unavoidable.  If  God  reveals  Himself  to 
them,  He  cannot  but  reveal  Himself  as  He  is.  Just  these  pre- 
cepts are  the  inevitable  expression  of  a  will  guided  by  immu- 
table perfections.  It  is  therefore  sijnply  impossible  that  any 
dispensation,  of  whatever  mercy  or  grace,  could  have  the  effect 
of  abrogating  righteous  obligation  over  God's  saints.  God's 
mercy  through  a  Redeemer  satisfying  justice,  may  lift  off  the 
curse  of  the  law  for  transgression ;  but  it  is  impossible  that  it 
should  abrogate  rightful  authority.  The  Law  then  must  remain, 
under  every  dispensation,  the  authoritative  declaration  of  God's 
character. 
23* 


354  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

A  second  essential  use  of  the  Law  under  the  New  Cove- 
The  Law  convicts  ^ant,  is  that  which  Gal.  iii  :  24  states  :  "  The 
of  our  need  of  Christ,  Law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto 
^^"  Christ."     By  showing  us  our  penal  debt,  and 

the  high  terms  of  the  covenant  of  works,  now  impossible  for 
the  sinner  to  fulfill,  it  prepares  his  soul  to  submit  to  the  right- 
eousness of  the  Redeemer.  A  third,  and  equally  essential  use 
appears  to  the  believer,  after  his  adoption.  He  is  "  chosen  in 
Christ  that  he  should  be  holy  "  ;  "  redeemed  from  all  iniquity  to 
be  Christ's  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works."  This 
great  end,  the  believer's  sanctification,  can  only  be  attained  in 
practice,  by  giving  him  a  holy  rule  of  conduct.  Such  a  rule  is 
the  Law.  It  is  to  be  as  assiduously  observed,  as  the  guide  to 
that  holiness  which  is  the  fruit  of  adoption,  as  though  its 
observance  could  earn  adoption.  A  fourth  important  purpose 
of  the  publication  of  the  Law  in  the  Church,  appears  in  this  ; 
that  its  precepts  restrain  the  aboundings  of  sin.  They  partially 
instruct  the  consciences  even  of  the  unrenewed.  They  guide 
secular  laws,  and  thus  lay  a  foundation  for  a  wholesome  civil 
society.  And  last :  the  publication  of  the  Law  is  preparatory 
for  that  use  which  God  will  make  of  it  in  the  Judgment  Day, 
for  the  conviction  of  His  enemies.  He  is  now,  in  every  such 
message,  preparing  to  close  the  mouths  of  the  disobedient  in 
that  day. 

For  these  reasons,  the  preaching  and  expounding  of 
the  Law  is  to  be  kept  up  diligently,  in  every  gospel 
Church. 

The  whole  decalogue  is  found  written  out  in  full,  in  two 
places  of  the  Bible ;  besides  a  number  of 
Summary^o°"Duty.°  ^  other  places,  where  one  or  more  of  the  pre- 
cepts is  cited.  These  places  are  Exodus 
XX  :  2  to  17,  andDeut.  v:  6  to  21.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Cate- 
chism, that  these  "Ten  Words  "  were  intended  to  be  a  summary 
of  man's  whole  duty.  Why,  it  may  be  asked,  is  so  much  made 
of  them  ?  Why  not  make  equal  account  of  some  few  verses 
taken  from  the  Proverbs,  or  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount?  We 
reply :  the  manner  of  their  publication  plainly  showed  that 
God  intended  to  give  them  the  peculiar  importance  we  assign 
them.  They  were  uttered  by  Him,  to  His  Church,  in  an  audi- 
ble voice,  £;c  oco.rayaz  dyyihov,  '(Acts  vii  :  53),  with  the  terrible 
adjuncts  of  clouds,  and  thunders,  and  lightnings,  and  the  sound 
of  a  trumpet.  They  were  the  only  parts  of  Revelation  thus 
spoken.  "  These  words  Jehovah  spake  unto  all  your  assembly 
in  the  mount,  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  of  the  cloud,  and 
the  thick  darkness ;  with  a  great  voice  ;  and  He  added  no 
more,"  Deut.  v  :  22.  None  of  the  ceremonial  nor  civic  rules 
were  thus  distinguished.  These  ten  precepts  were  then  graven 
by  God  Himself  on  two  tables  oi  stone ;  the  imperishable 
material  signifying  the  perpetuity  of  the  laws — and  these  tab- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  355 

les  were  to  be  kept  among  the  most  sacred  things  of  their 
rehgion.  Christ,  in  giving  that  summary  of  man's  duty  into 
the  two  precepts  of  love  to  God,  and  love  to  man,  is  evidently 
abridging  the  Decalogue.  He  says  that  on  these  two  abridged 
commands,  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets.  Therefore  all 
the  Old  Testament  hangs  on  the  Decalogue,  of  which  these 
two  are  the  epitome.  These  are  the  grounds,  together  with  the 
obvious  comprehensiveness  and  perfection  of  the  ten  precepts, 
(which  will  be  evinced  in  their  exposition)  on  which  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  Churches  have  always  held  this  Decalogue  to  be 
designed  as  the  epitome  of  the  whole  Law. 

Expositors  have  not  been  entirely  agreed  in  the  division  of 
n-  -H  H  ■?  ^^^  Decalogue.     Some   would    have  it,  that 

ow     m  e    .  ^^^  precepts  belonged  to  the  first  table,  and 

five  to  the  second.  This  opinion  seems  to  be  dictated  only  by 
a  fondness  for  mechanical  symmetry.  It  is  now  generally 
held,  that  four  precepts  composed  the  first  table,  and  six  the 
second.  This  is  the  natural  division.  Of  the  duties  enjoined 
in  the  first  four,  God  is  the  direct  object :  of  those  inculcated  in 
the  last  six,  man  is  the  direct  object.  Thus  we  conform  our 
division  to  our  Saviour's  summary,  love  to  God  and  love  to 
man.  Some  have  supposed  that  they  found  an  evidence  of 
this  division  in  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  when  he  calls 
the  fifth  the  "  first  commandment  with  promise."  It  is  observed 
that  this  is  not  the  first  containing  a  promise,  if  the  first 
table  be  included ;  whence  they  suppose  that  the  Apostle  calls 
it  first,  with  reference  to  the  second  table,  at  the  head  of 
which  it  stood. 

It  remains  that  we   settle   the   principles   upon  which  the 
Rules  of  Interpreta-    decalogue   is  to   be  interpreted  and   applied, 
tion — The  Precepts  are    If  it  is   an    epitome   of  duty,  it   contains   of 
Spiritual.  course  more  than  the  formal  propositions  in 

which  it  is  verbally  expressed.  The  first  and  most  important 
of  those  principles  is  that  announced  by  St.  Paul  in  the  7th  of 
Romans :  '  The  Law  is  spiritual'  It  claims  to  regulate,  not 
only  the  acts,  but  the  desires  and  thoughts,  the  inner  as  well  as 
the  outer  man.  For  farther  proof,  note  that  Christ,  in  His 
exposition  (Matt,  v,)  expressly  extends  the  prohibitions  to  the 
secret  motions  of  the  heart  towards  sin.  Causless  anger  is 
declared  to  be  the  soul's  sin  of  murder;  lust  is  the  soul's  adult- 
ery ;  coveting,  as  Paul  indicates,  is  the  soul's  theft.  I  prove  the 
same  rule  from  this  :  that  Christ  resolves  all  duties  into  love, 
which  is  an  inward  state  of  affection.  And  last,  the  same  rule 
must  follow  from  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  God  whose  law  it 
is.  He  claims  to  be  the  '  Searcher  of  Hearts.'  He  judgeth 
not  by  the  outward  appearance.  '  He  requireth  truth  in  the 
inward  parts.'  The  law  of  such  a  being  must  apply  chiefly  to 
the  inward  affections,  as  our  reason  approves. 

Second  :  In  each  precept,  the  chief  duty  or  sin  is  taken  as 


356  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

The  Sin  or  Duty  representative  of  the  various  lesser  duties  or 
Named  is  Representa-  sins  of  that  class ;  and  the  overt  act  is  taken 
^^^-  as  representative  of  all  related  affections,  and 

under  it  they  are  all  enjoined  or  forbidden.  Thus,  our  Saviour 
teaches  us- that  under  the  head  of  murder,  angry  thoughts  and 
abusive  words  are  also  forbidden.  We  are  authorizec^  by  such 
examples  to  conclude  that  under  the  one  precept,  '  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,'  all  offences  against  our  fellow-men's  lives,  safety,  and 
personal  welfare,  are  forbidden.  So  of  the  other  commandments. 
This  follows  from  the  fact  that  the  decalogue  is  a  summary. 

3.  To  command  a  given  class  of  duties  plainly  implies  a 

prohibition  of  the  opposite  class  of  sins,  and 
_ Commandment  Implied  .^,1^^  ^,gysa.     Thus:   Injuries  against  the  life 

m  Prohibition,  (XC.  r    r    n  r       ^    ■   ^    ^  i    • 

and  person  01  teilows  are  lorbidden ;  this 
implies  the  obligation  of  active  efforts  to  protect  them,  as  we 
have  opportunity.  This  follows  from  the  practical  scope  of  the 
law.  What  is  the  design  or  intent  of  the  sixth  commandment  ? 
Obviously  to  secure  our  fellows  the  enjoyment  of  life  and  safety. 
If,  then,  the  obligation  is  adequate  to  the  practical  end,  it  must 
include  active  efforts  to  promote,  as  well  as  refraining  from  in- 
juring, that  end.  This  is  confirmed  by  our  Saviour's  summa- 
tion :  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself"  Hence, 
while  the  6th  commandment  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill ;"  it 
also  means,  "Thou  shalt  save  thy  fellow  from  killing." 

4.  When  anything  is  commanded  or  forbidden,  the  regular 

and  necessary  means  and  incitements  thereto 
Means  Included  in    ^^.^    ^jg^    commanded    or   forbidden.       And 

when  any  duty  of  one  party  towards  another 
is  enjoined,  the  relative  state  or  duty  thereto  is  also  enjoined  on 
the  second  party  towards  the  first. 

5.  The  precepts  of  the  first  table,  containing  duties  towards 
God  before    Man :    God,  are  superior  in  obligation  to  the  second 

Moral  Precepts  before  table,  towards  man.  See  Luke  xiv  :  26 ; 
Positive.  Mz.\X.  V  :  37  ;  Acts  iv  :  19  ;  Eph.  vi  :  i.  When- 

ever the  authority  of  man  clashes  with  that  of  God,  the  former 
must  therefore  give  way.  But  moral  duties,  though  they  be 
duties  of  the  second  table,  are  superior  to  mere  positive  or  cer- 
emonial duties  of  the  first  table.     See  Matt,  xii :  7  ;  Prov.  xxi  :  3. 

Last.  The  prohibitory  precepts  bind  us  equally  at  all 
times  ;  the  mandatory,  only  when  the  proper 
^^Prohibitions  Perpetu-  objects  of  the  duty  are  present.  The  pre- 
cept "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  binds  at  every 
moment;  the  command,  "Honour  thy  father  and  mother," 
only  binds  when  we  bear  suitable  relations  to  some  superior. 

Many  Socinians    and    Abolitionists,  and  sorne  Papists,  in 

t:   Tl     L      P   f   t    o'"^^'*  to  support  favourite  prejudices,  strenu- 

— Christ  made   no    ously  assert  that  the   moral   law,  as  given  to 

Changes  of  Substance,    the  Jews,  was  an  imperfect  rule,  and  was  com- 

because  Immutable.       pj^^^j  ^^^^  perfected  by  Jesus  Christ.     We 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  35/ 

grant,  indeed,  that  Christ  freed  this  law  from  the  corrupt  glosses 
of  tradition,  and  that  He  showed  the  true  extent  of  its  appli- 
cation. But  we  deny  that  He  made  any  change  or  substantial 
addition.  We  admit  that  He  carried  it  farther  in  the  way  of 
detail,  but  we  deny  that  He  corrected  anything  of  its  principle. 
These  errorists  pretend  to  claim  this  as  an  honour  to  Jesus 
Christ  aifd  His  mission,  and  as  evincing  His  superiority  over 
Moses.  They  hereby  do  Him  dishonour.  For  the  decalogue 
is  as  much  Christ's  law  as  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  He  was 
the  authoritative  agent  for  giving  both.  For  it  was  "  with  the 
Angel  which  spake  unto  him  in  Mount  Sinai,"  (Christ,  Acts  vii: 
38)  that  Moses  "received  these  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us  " 
Second  :  It  would  be  dishonorable  to  a  perfect  God  to  suppose 
that  He  would  reveal  to  His  chosen  people,  as  a  rule  of  right- 
eousness, a  law  which  allowed  some  sin.  Then,  all  the  holiness 
produced  under  that  law  was  spurious.  Third:  God  forbade  that 
the  law  should  receive  addition.  Deut.  iv  :  2  ;  xii :  32.  Fourth  : 
Christ  honoured  this  law,  declared  it  everlasting  and  unchange- 
able, and  said  that  He  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil  it. 
Fifth  :  Christ  says  that  on  His  abridgments  of  this  law  hang  all 
the  law  and  the  prophets.  And  last :  St.  Paul,  having  resolved 
the  precepts  of  this  decalogue  into  the  one  principle  of  love 
(Rom.  xiii  :  9),  verse  loth  says  :  "Love  is  fulfilling  of  the  law." 
This  is  said  by  this  minister  of  the  new  dispensation.  And 
both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  assert  the  perfection  of  this 
Old  Testament  law.  See  Ps.  xix  :  7  ;  Rom.  vii:  12;  Ps.  cxix  :  96. 
In  further  support  of  this  view,  I  remark  that  the  very  par- 
ticulars in  which  it  is  pretended  Jesus  amend- 
Precepts  of  New  Tes-  ^    softened,  and  completed  the  moral  law, 

tament  also  in  Old.  '  '  ,..  '^   . 

are  stated  just  as  distmctly,  although  perhaps 
not  as  forcibly  in  all  cases,  by  Moses  and  the  prophets,  in  their 
expositions  of  the  decalogue.  E.  g.,  the  love  of  enemies,  in 
Matt.  V  :  44;  see  it  in  Exod.  xxiii  :  4,  5,  Levit.  xix  :  18.  The 
great  law^s  of  love  of  Matt,  xxii  :  T,y,  &c. ;  see  Deut.  vi  :  4,  5, 
Levit.  xix  :  18.  The  command  of  benevolence  to  strangers  in 
Luke  X  :  36,  37:  see  it  in  Levit.  xxiv  :  22,  xxv  :  35,  Deut.  x  : 
19.  The  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  law,  as  embracing  not 
only  outward  acts,  but  the  thoughts  and  desires  of  the  heart ; 
see  Levit.  xix  :  17,  18,  Deut.  xi  :  13,  Ps.  xxiv  :  4,  li  :  6.  Christ's 
new  commandment  (Jno.  xiii  :  34)  was  only  "  the  old  command 
renewed,"  only  a  re-enactment  with  an  additional  motive  : 
Christ's  love  for  us.  Christ,  in  His  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  then, 
and  other  places,  rebukes  and  corrects,  not  the  law  itself,  nor 
the  Old  Testament  interpretations  of  the  law,  but  the  erroneous 
and  wicked  corruptions  foisted  upon  it  by  traditions  and  Phari- 
saic glosses.  The  moral  law  could  not  be  completed,  because 
it  is  as  perfect  as  God,  of  whose  character  it  is  the  impress 
and  transcript.  It  cannot  be  abrogated  or  relaxed,  because 
it  is  as  immutable  as  He. 


LECTURE  XXXI 

THE  FIRST  TABLE.     (COMMANDMENTS   ist,  2nd,  3d.) 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  does  the  First  Commandment  enjoin?     ^\^lat does  it  forbid ? 

2.  Discuss,  against  Papists,  tlie  worship  of  saints,  angels  and  reUcs. 

3.  ^\^lat  does  the  Second  Commandment  forbid  and  enjoin  ? 

4.  Discuss,  against  Papists,  the  lawfulness  of  image-worship. 

5.  What  does  the  Third  Commandment  forbid  and  enjoin?     Are  religious  vows 
and  oaths,  imposed  by  magistrates,  lawful  ?     See 

Shorter  Catechism,  Qu.  44-56.  Larger  Cat.,  Qu.  100-114.  Turrettin,  Loc. 
xi,  Qu.  7-12.  Dick,  Lect.  103.  Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  8,  §  13-27.  Dr. 
Green's  Lectures  on  Sh.  Cat.,  37-41.  Council  of  Trent  Decree,  Session  xxv. 
(Strietwolff,  Vol.  i,  p.  93,  &c.)  Catechisnnis  Romanus,  Pii  V,  pt.  iii  ch.  2, 
Qu.  3-14,  and  pt.  iv,  ch.  6  on  2nd  Question.  "  Historical  Theologj',"  by  Dr. 
Wm.  Cunningham,  ch.   12. 

TN  the  exposition  of  the  precepts,  I  do  not  propose  to  detain 
you  with  those  ordinary  particulars  which  you  may  find  in 
your  catechisms  and  text-books.  I  would,  once  for  all,  refer 
you  to  those  authorities,  especially  for  answers  to  the  question, 
what  each  commandment  especially  enjoins  and  prohibits.  My 
chief  aim,  in  the  few,  disjointed  discussions  which  time  will 
allow,  is  to  enter  into  a  few  of  .the  more  disputed  and  more  im- 
portant questions  of  morals  and  ecclesiastical  usag.e,  which  now 
agitate  society  and  the  Church. 

I.  The    affirmative    and    negative    obligations    of   the    ist 

Commandment    all    depend    upon  the   great 

Scope   of  the    ist    j-j-yj-h    of    God's  exclusive    unity,   which    we 

Commandment  ,  ,    .  1  r-      •    ,  t-i 

have  proved  Irom  reason  and  Scripture.     1  he 

duty  of  "  having  Him  for  our  God"  may  be  said  to  be  the  sum- 
mary of  almost  all  the  commands  of  love,  reverence  and  obedi- 
ence, which  so  abound  in  the  Scriptures.  But  we  may  say  that 
includes  especially,  under  the  general  idea  of  rendering  Him  all 
the  affection  and  service  which  our  nature.  His  character,  and 
our  relations  to  Him  require  ;  the  following  :  The  duty,  (a)  of 
loving  Him  supremely.  (See  Matt,  xxii  :  37).  (b)  Of  regulating 
all  our  moral  acts  by  His  revealed  will  Matt,  xxviii  :  20.  (c) 
Of  owning  and  acknowledging  Him  publicly.  Josh,  xxiv  :  22. 
(d)  Of  promoting  His  cause  and  glory  in  all  suitable  ways,  i 
Cor.  X  :  31.  (e)  Of  rendering  to  Him  such  acts  of  religious 
worship  as  He  may  see  fit  to  demand.  Ps.  xxix  :  2.  (f)  Of 
thanking  Him  for  His  benefits.  Ps.  cvi  :  i.  (g)  Of  trusting  to 
His  promises.  Is.  xxvi  :  4.  (h)  Of  submitting  to  His  chas- 
tisements. I  Pet.  V  :  6.  (i)  Fearing  His  anger.  Ps.  Ixxxvi  : 
II.  (j)  Repenting  of  having  sinned  against  Him,  Acts  xvii  : 
30,  and  in  short,  (k)  Choosing  Him  as  the  portion  and  eternal 
inheritance  of  our  souls.     Ps.  Ixxiiii  :  25  ;  xvii  :  15. 

The  most  current  breach  of  this  commandment  in  nomi- 
358 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  359 

nally  Christian  communities,  is  doubtless  the 
Sin  of  Idolatrous  Af-  ^-^^  ^^  inordinate  affections.  Scripture  brands 
these  as  idolatry,  or  the  worshipping  of  an- 
other than  the  true  God,  especially  in  the  case  of  covetousness  ; 
(Eph.  V  :  5  ;  Col.  iii  :  5  ;  Job  xxxi  :  24-28.)  and  parity  of  rea- 
soning extends  the  teaching  to  all  other  inordinate  desires.  We 
conceive  formal  idolatry,  as  that  of  the  Hindoo,  a  very  foolish 
and  flagrant  thing;  we  palliate  this  spiritual  idolatry  of  pas- 
sions. God  classes  them  together,  in  order  to  show  us  the  enor- 
mity of  the  latter.  What  then  is  it,  that  constitutes  the  "  having 
of  God  for  our  God?"  It  includes,  (a)  Love  for  Him  stronger 
than  all  other  affections,  (b)  Trusting  Him,  as  our  highest  por- 
tion aud  source  of  happiness,  (c)  Obeying  and  serving  Him 
supremely,  (d)  Worshipping  Him  as  He  requires.  Now  that 
thing  to  which  we  render  these  regards  and  services,  is  our  God, 
whether  it  be  gold,  fame,  power,  pleasure,  or  friends. 

Rome's  worship   of  saints  and  angels  is   founded   on   her 
2.  Romish  Idolatry,    assertion  of  their  heavenly  mediation  for  us, 
Founded  on  Creature    which  she  asserts,  against  I  Tim.  ii  :  5.     You 
Mediation.  ^jH  ^^^^  ^]^jg   gj-ror   discussed   and   refuted  in 

your  Senior  year,  when  we  come  to  treat  and  defend  the  sole 
mediation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  shall  now  anticipate  that 
conclusion,  as  the  basis  of  my  denial  of  the  worship  of  crea- 
tures ;  only  adding  that,  if  you  feel  curiosity  concerning  Rome's 
defence  of  it,  you  may  find  her  arguments  in  the  places  cited 
from  the  documents  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

But  as  there  is  no  heavenly  mediation  of  angels  or  saints, 
we  argue  the  more,  that  no  intelligent  wor- 
Saint' wSp.  '''^'''"'^  ship  can  be  paid  them,  without  idolatry,  (a) 
Because  there  are  no  examples  nor  precepts 
for  it  in  the  Bible.  The  honour  due  superiors  is  social  and 
political ;  between  which  and  religious  worship,  there  is  a  fun- 
damental difference.  In  all  the  cases  cited  by  Rome,  of  the. wor- 
shipping of  creature-angels,  there  was  only  a  hospitable  and 
deferential  obeisance  to  persons  supposed  to  be  dignified  stran- 
gers and  human  beings.  Where  there  was  worship  proper,  it 
was  always  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  the  Son  of  God,  who 
was  worshipped.  Compare  Gen.  xviii :  2,  and  xix  :  i,  with  Gen. 
xviii :  22,  23,  we  learn  that  of  the  persons  to  whom  Abraham  did 
social  obeisance  as  respectable  guests  and  human  beings,  the 
one  to  whom  Abraham  actually  prayed,  was  the  Jehovah-Christ ; 
and  the  others  were  creature-angels  in  human  form.  But  the 
student  is  referred  to  the  argument  on  the  pre-existence  of  Christ, 
Lect.  xvii ;  where  it  is  proved  that  all  these  cases  of  worship  of 
the  "  angel,"  were  cases  of  homage  offered  to  Christ. 

(b)  Inspired  saints  and  creature-angels  are  represented  in 
every  case,  as  repudiating  proper  religious  worship,  when 
attempted  towards  them,  with  holy  abhorrence.  See  Matt,  iv  : 
10;  Acts  xiv  :  13-15  ;  Rev.  xix  :  10;  xxii  :  9. 


3^0  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Rome  herself  acknowledges,  (Cat.  Rom.  Pt.  Ill,  Ch.  2,  Qu. 
,    .,      ,      ^^  ,       4,  or  Pt.  IV,  Ch.  6,  Qu.  3),  it  would  be  idola- 

Aov/eia   also    Idola-     t         .  i  •  ,  '     -.i        , 

ti-ous.  "y   "-^  worship   creatures  with   the  same  sort 

of  worship  paid  to  God.  Here  then,  their 
doctors  bring  in  their  distinction  of  h/xniia  and  oooXtia  to  jus- 
tify themselves.  This  distinction  is  utterly  vain  and  empty. 
Because  first,  the  u.sage  neither  of  classic  nor  bibhcal  Greek 
justifies  it;  nor  that  of  the  primitive  Fathers.  The  one  word, 
as  much  as  the  other,  is  used  of  the  worship  peculiar  to  God 
Himself.  See  Matt,  vi  :  24 ;  i  Thess.  i  :  9,  &c.  The  Galatians 
are  rebuked  for  having  served  those  who  by  nature  are  no 
Gods.  (Ch.  iv  :  8),  idouAsuaars.  If  then  the  doo/.sca  of  the  New 
Testament  is  that  of  Rome,  the  case  is  decided.  But  let  us  see 
how  they  distinguish  their  dooXda.  Here  we  say,  second :  that 
it  is  religious  worship.  This  is  proved  by  its  being  rendered  in 
Church  (God"s  house),  at  the  altar,  in  the  midst  of  their  litur- 
gies, on  God's  holy  day,  and  mixed  with  God's  own  worship. 
This  confusion  at  least  is  unpardonable.  Third:  in  practice 
they  do  not  limit  themselves  to  dookeia  but  ask  of  the  saints, 
and  especially  of  Mary,  gifts  most  essentially  divine ;  not  inter- 
cession merely,  but  protection,  pardon,  sanctification,  victory 
over  death.  Here  see  Romish  Breviaries,  passim;  and  the 
Stabat  Mater.  Daniel's  Thesaurus  Hymnolog,  vol.  2,  p.  133. 
Streitwolff,  Libri.  Symbolici,  vol.  2,  p.  343,  &c.  Fourth,  even 
if  only  intercession  were  asked,  the  doulv.a  would  still  imply  in 
the  saints  omnipresence,  omniscience,  infinite  goodness,  and 
such-like  divine  attributes.  To  evade  this  crushing  objection, 
some  Romish  doctors  have  advanced  their  figment  of  the 
Speculum  Triiiitatis.  They  imagine  that  the  saints,  blessed 
with  the  beatific  vision  of  God,  see  reflected  in  His  omniscience 
whatever  He  sees,  at  least  of  the  wants  '  and  petitions  of  the 
Church.  But  besides  the  fatal  lack  of  Scriptural  warrant,  this 
figment  is  absurd.  For  to  see  an  overwhelming  multitude  of 
objects  at  once,  in  a  mirror,  reflected,  will  confound  a  finite 
mind  as  much  as  to  see  them  directly.  And  besides,  the  figment 
contradicts  Scripture,  Matt,  xxiv  :  36 ;  John  xv :  1 5  ;  i  Cor.  ii :  1 1 . 
Rome's  saint-  and  angel-worship  is  but  baptized  paganism, 

and  like   all   other,  it  tends   to   degrade   the 
Moral     effects    of  i  •  tt  ^i         •  i^  r    i.i 

Creature-Worship.  worshipers.     Hence,  the   importance   ot    the 

prohibition  of  idolatry.  Nothing  but  infinite 
perfection  should  be  the  object  of  religious  worship.  The  rev- 
erence and  admiration  which  worship  implies  invest  every 
quality  of  the  object  worshiped  with  sanctity.  Blemishes  are 
always  reproduced  in  the  votaries.  The  worship  of  an  imper- 
fect object  is  therefore  the  deification  of  defects.  Rom.  i  :  25, 
26;  Ps.  cxv  :  8.  But  the  more  the  worshiper  is  corrupted,  the 
more  degraded  will  be  the  divinities  which  he  will  construct  for 
himself  out  of  his  defiled  heart,  until  the  vile  descent  is  realized 
V.  Ivxh  St.  Paul  describes  in  Rom.  i  :  22.  23. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  36 1 

As  the  first  commandment  fixes  the  object,  so  the  second 
fixes  the  mode  of  religious  worship.     Under 

3.  Scope  of  Second    ^\^^^  most  extreme  corruption  of  mode  which 

Commandment.  .  .  .  '^  ,  .  ,, 

consists  in  miage-worship,  all  erroneous 
modes  of  homage  to  the  true  God  even,  are  prohibited.  It 
may  be  said  in  general,  that  this  commandment  requires  those 
acts  and  modes  of  worship  for  the  true  God  which  He  hath 
required  of  us  in  His  word,  and  prohibits  all  others.  What 
Protestants  call  will-worship  is  forbidden,  on  these  obvious 
grounds :  God  is  infinite,  and,  in  large  part,  inscrutable  to  crea- 
ture minds.  It  is  His  prerogative  to  reveal  Himself  to  us,  as 
He  has  done.  If  we  form  surmises  how  He  is  to  be  honoured, 
they  will  be  partially  erroneous ;  for  error  belongs  to  man. 
Hence  (as  experience  too  fully  confirms),  the  offering  of  worship 
of  human  invention  to  God  has  always  dishonoured  Him,  and 
corrupted  the  worshipers.  Our  Saviour,  therefore,  expressly 
condemns  it.     Matt,  xv  :  9. 

The  doctrine   of   Rome  concerning  the  use  of  images  in 

worship,  with  its  defence,  may  be  seen  in  the 

4.  Image  \V  orslnp.       ^^^     ^^^^  p^    jjj^  ^^_  2,  Qu.  9-I4  inclusive. 

You  will  there  remark  the  curious  arrangement  which  makes 
our  second  commandment  a  part  of,  or  appendix  to  the  first, 
and  usually  prints  it  with  small  type.  While  this  claims  some 
little  patristic  countenance,  its  object  is  undoubtedly  to  depre- 
ciate this  command.  As  the  number  of  ten  precepts  is  too 
well  fixed  to  be  called  in  question,  Rome  attempts  to  make  it 
up  by  dividing  the  loth,  without  shadow  of  valid  reason,  as  we 
shall  see. 

Rome  grants  (Qu.  12)  that  the  Deity  should  not  be  repre- 
sented by  any  shape,  because  immense  and 
Romish  Excuses.  inconceivable.  To  concede  thus  much,  in- 
deed, was  unavoidable ;  the  prohibitions  are  so  plain.  But  to 
excuse  her  image-worship,  Qu.  13th  teaches  that  the  making 
of  images  of  persons  of  the  Trinity  is  no  wrong,  for  this,  when 
correctly  understood,  is  no  attempt  to  represent  the  Divine 
essence ;  it  only  expresses  the  property  and  actions  which  the 
Scriptures  give  the  Persons.  Thus,  the  Father  is  represented, 
in  supposed  imitation  of  Daniel  vii  :  9,  as  a  hoary  old  man ; 
the  Son  in  a  human  figure ;  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  after  Matt,  iii: 
16,  as  a  dove.  The  idea  of  trinity  in  unity  is  usually  repre- 
sented as  a  luminous  triangle. 

To  this  evasion  I  reply,  are  not  the  Persons  very  God  ?  Is 
not  their  essence  one,  and  properly  divine  ?  How,  then,  can  it 
be  right  to  picture  them,  and  wrong  to  picture  Deity  ?  If  we 
may  use  the  image  of  the  Person,  because  it  is  designed  to 
represent  some  act  or  property  of  it,  why  not  of  the  Deity? 
Indeed,  the  luminous  triangle  is  an  attempt  to  represent  the 
latter. 

Rome  urges  also  that  to  figure  or  picture  objects  of  wor- 


362  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ship  cannot  be  wrong,  because  God  has  done 
God's  Example  no    -^^     ^[q  appears  as  a  man  in   Gen,  xviii,  and 
Rule  to  Us.  .       ^  -"^^    ..  ,  .      -r-         .     ... 

HI  Gen.  xxxu  :  24;  as  an  angel  in  l^xod.  ni  : 

2;  as  a  shekinah,  2  Chron.  vii  :  i.  The  Holy  Ghost  appears 
as  a  dove,  Matt,  iii  :  16.  God  also  commanded  the  cherubim 
to  be  placed  in  the  most  sacred  part  of  the  oracle,  at  the  very 
part  towards  which  the  High  Priest  directed  his  worship.  God 
also  directed  Moses  to  make  a  brazen  serpent  and  elevate  it 
upon  a  pole.     Numb,  xxi  :  8. 

Now,  the  general  and  sufficient  answer  to  this  is,  that 
God's  doing  a  thing  Himself  is  no  warrant  whatever  for  us  to 
presume  on  imitating  Him.  May  we  kill  people  at  will,  because 
He  slays  some  thirty  millions  annually?  His  precepts  are  our 
rule,  not  the  acts  of  His  own  sovereignty,  which  His  incom- 
municable attributes  properly  render  unique  and  inimitable. 
The  representations  which  God  has  seen  fit  to  make  of  Him- 
self to  one  and  another  prophet  were  temporary,  not  perman- 
ent, occasional  —  yea,  rare  —  presented  only  to  the  prophet's 
own  private  eye,  not  to  the  Church  customarily ;  and  they 
were,  after  all,  phantasmata,  impressed  on  the  prophet's  imag- 
ination in  esctatic  vision  —  not  actual,  material  constructions, 
like  the  idols  of  men.  Chiefly,  as  visions,  they  were  true,  for 
they  were  to  the  prophets  symbols  of  some  special  presence  of 
God,  and  God  was  in  some  way  specially  present  then  and 
there.  But  these  figures,  when  used  by  Papists,  are  symbols 
of  no  such  truth ;  for  God  has  not  authorized  them  to  expect 
any  special  presence  where  they  exhibit  the  images.  They  are 
therefore  false,  while  God's  visions  were  true. 

The  carved  Cherubim  over  the  mercy-seat  were  not  idols 

at  all,  but  merely  architectural  ornaments, 
inScri\"i!rT'^^°''^'^    having,  indeed  a  symbolical  fitness,   but  no 

more  objects  of  worship  than  the  knops  and 
lilies  of  the  carving.  The  brazen  serpent  too,  was  a  type,  and 
not  an  object  of  worship.  As  well  might  the  Papist  bring  as  a 
plea,  the  fact  that  God  has  represented  Christ  by  bread  and 
wine.  See  Jno.  iii  :  14.  Especially  since  the  coming  of  the 
antitype,  has  this  case  not  a  shadow  of  force  to  excuse  idolatry. 
That  its  worship  was  never  permitted  is  clearly  shown  by  2d 
Kings  xviii  :  4 ;  where  we  read  that  the  good  King  Hezekiah, 
detecting  the  Jews  in  this  error,  had  the  identical  serpent 
crushed,  saying  "it  is  brazen."  ("It  is  but  brass.")  As  to 
the  picturing  and  worshipping  of  the  man  Jesus,  the  delineation 
of  His  human  person  has  more  shadow  of  reason,  because  He 
is  incarnate.  But  there  is  no  portrait  or  description  of  Christ, 
which  is  authentic.  If  there  was,  He  is  now,  when  glorified, 
wholly  unlike  it.  Chiefly;  an  image  could  only  represent  His 
humanity,  as  distinguished  from  His  divinity;  and  the  former, 
thus  abstracted,  is  no  proper  object  of  worship.  The  use  of 
the  crucifix  in  worship,  therefore,  tendeth  to  evil. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  363 

3.  The  Council  of  Trent  urges  that  the  image  is  not  itself 

regarded  as  divine ;  but  only  as  a  visible  rep- 

AU  Idolaters  profess    resentation,  to  assist  the  unlearned  especially, 
to  look  above  the  idol.      .  .    .  ,  ^     ,  ^    .       .  ^ ' 

in  conceiving  the  real  presence  ot  the  invisi- 
ble. To  this  I  reply:  it  is  just  the  distinction  which  all  the 
pagans  make,  except  the  most  besotted.  Does  any  one  sup- 
pose that  the  acute  Hindoo  is  so  stupid  as  to  mistake  the  lump 
of  clay  or  wood,  which  yesterday  was  a  clod  or  a  stick,  and 
which  he  saw  helpless  in  the  hands  of  the  mechanic,  for  a  true 
God?  If  charged  with  such  folly,  he  makes  precisely  the  Pap- 
ist's reply :  that  he  worships  the  invisible  God  through  the  help 
of  the  visible  representation  of  Him.  So  answered  the  ancient 
idolaters  to  the  primitive  Christians.  By  adopting  it,  the  Pap- 
ist puts  himself,  where  he  properly  belongs,  in  the  pagan  cate- 
gory. And  this  is  the  very  sin  which  the  Scriptures  intend  to 
prohibit.  An  examination  of  the  sin  with  Aaron's  calf,  Exod. 
xxxii,  of  Micah's  idolatry.  Judges  xvii  :  3-13,  and  of  the  sin 
of  Jeroboam,  i  Kings  xii  :  28,  &c.,  will  show  that  in  each  case 
the  criminal  attempt  was  to  worship  the  true  Jehovah,  unmis- 
takeably  recognized  by  His  incommunicable  name,  or  as  He 
who  brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  through  an  image  supposed 
appropriate. 

4.  To  worship  the  true  God  by  an  image  is,  then,  the  very 
...  J.  r       thing  forbidden,  because  such  a  representa- 

ition  of  Idolatry  in  tion  is  necessarily  false.  For,  God  being  a 
Scripture  Cases.  God  spiritual,  immense,  and  invisible  Being,  to 
inimitable.  represent  Him  as  a  limited  material  form,  is, 

a  falsehood.  To  clothe  Him  with  the  form  of  any  of  His  crea- 
tures, angelic,  human,  or  animal,  is  the  most  heinous  hisult  to 
His  majesty.  God  is  a  Spirit,  cognizable  by  no  sense.  To 
represent  Him  by  a  material,  visible  and  palpable  image  or  pic- 
ture is  a  false  representation.  He  is  omnipresent.  To  draw  or 
carve  Him  as  bounded  by  an  outline,  and  contained  in  a  local 
form,  belies  this  attribute.  He  is  self-existent,  and  has  no 
beginning.  To  represent  Him  by  what  His  puny  creature 
made,  and  ^  what  yesterday  was  not,  belies  His  self-existence 
and  eternity.  He  declares  Himself  utterly  unlike  all  creatures, 
and  incomprehensible  by  them.  To  liken  Him  to  any  of  them 
is  both  a  misrepresentation  and  insult.  Hence,  a  material 
image  of  the  Godhead,  or  of  any  Person  thereof,  is  an  utter 
falsehood.  Papists  used  to  be  fond  of  saying  :  "  Images  are 
the  books  of  the  unlearned."  We  reply:  they  are  books  then, 
which  teach  lies  only.  The  crowning  argument  against  them, 
is  that  the  Scriptures  expressly  forbid  them ;  and  equally 
plainly,  base  their  prohibition  on  the  fact  that  no  image  can  cor- 
rectly represent  God.  Deut.  iv  :  15,  16;  Is.  xl  :  12-18;  Acts 
xvii  :  29.  "  Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto  yourselves,  (for 
ye  saw  no  manner  of  similitude  on  the  day  that  the  Lord  spake 
unto  you   in    Horeb,   out  of  the  midst  of   the  fire),   lest  you 


364  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

corrupt    yourselves,    and    make    you    a    graven    image,"     &c. 

You  are  familiar  with  the  answer  to  our  last  head  of  in- 
quiry,  which  says  the  third  Commandment 
Commandment.  "^  requireth  the  holy  and  reverent  use  of  God's 
name,  titles  attributes,  ordinances,  word, 
and  works ;  "  and  forbiddeth  all  profaning  or  abusing  of  any- 
thing whereby  God  maketh  Himself  known."  The  scope  of 
this  precept  is  to  secure  a  reverential  treatment  of  God  and  all 
that  suggests  Him,  in  our  speech  and  other  jnedia  of  communi- 
cation, with  each  other.  Its  practical  importance  is  justified 
by  what  the  Apostle  James  teaches  us  of  the  responsibility  and 
influence  of  our  faculty  of  speech.  When  you  read  his  state- 
ments, and  consider  how  fully  experience  justifies  them;  when 
you  consider  the  large  place  which  this  power  of  communicat- 
ing ideas  fills  in  society,  you  will  see  why  God  has  elevated  the 
sanctification  of  the  tongue  into  a  place  among  the  "  ten 
words." 

Every  christian  is  familiar  with  the  idea  that  this  precept 
is  meant  to  prohibit  sins  of  profane  cursing 
Sins  forbidden  in  it.  ^^^  swearing  in  all  their  forms.  Among 
these  abuses  may  also  be  classed  all  irreverent  uses  of  Sacred 
Scripture ;  all  heartless  and  formal  worship,  whether  by  pray- 
ing or  singing ;  all  irreverence  and  levity  in  the  house  of  God 
during  the  celebration  of  His  worship  or  sacraments ;  all  heed- 
ejaculations  of  His  name  and  attributes ;  and  most  flagrantly, 
perjury.  This,  the  crowning  crime  of  this  class,  is  a  breach 
both  of  the  third  and  ninth  Commandments.  It  violates  the 
obligations  of  truth ;  and  also  violates  those  of  reverence  in  the 
most  flagrant  manner.  An  oath  is  an  appeal  to  God  for  the 
sanction  of  the  asseveration  then  made.  It  invokes  all  His 
attributes  in  the  most  formal  manner,  to  act  as  umpires  between 
the  parties,  and  if  the  asseveration  is  falsified,  to  witness  and 
avenge  it.  Where  an  oath  is  falsely  taken,  it  is  a  heaven-dar- 
ing attempt  to  enlist  the  Almighty  in  the  sanction  of  the  crea- 
ture's lie ;  and  is  thus,  either  the  most  outrageous  levity,  or  the 
most  outrageous  impiety,  of  which  he  can  be  guilty. 

But  we  do  not  hold  that  the  reverential  occasional  use  of 

religious  vows,  or  the  serious  taking  of  the 

VowTnol  F^orbJdde'n".'^    O'-^t^  from  the  civil  magistrate,  is  a  breach  of 

this  commandment.     You  are  aware  that  the 

Quakers,  and  some  other   Christians  hold  all  oaths   unlawful. 

We  base  our  view  on  the  following  reasons : 

Moses  expressly  commands  the  people  to  swear  by  the 
name  of  Jehovah,  whenever  they  did  swear.  Deut.  vi  :  13. 
This  surely  implies  that  there  is  a  right,  and  proper  time  to 
swear.  The  Israelites  were  carefully  instructed  how  to  swear. 
Levit.  xix  :  12.  Oaths  were  appointed  to  be  administered  by 
Divine  authority,  in  certain  cases.  Exod.  xxii  :  i  r ;  Numb,  v  : 
19.     Surely  God  would    not  require   His  people  to  sin !     We 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  365 

find  that  God  sware ;  and  "  because  He  could  swear  by  no 
greater,  He  sware  by  Himself."  His  example  is  worthy  of 
mention  here,  although  we  do  not  presume  a  right  to  make  it 
our  rule  in  every  case.  We  find  that  the  apostles  also,  and 
especially  Paul,  frequently  appealed  to  God  in  oaths.  Rom.  i  : 
9;  2  Cor.  i  :  23  ;  Gal.  i  :  20.  These  expressions  involve  all  the 
essentials  of  an  oath.  But  we  have  a  more  indisputable  exam- 
ple. Jesus  Christ  took  an  oath,  when  it  was  tendered  to  Him 
by  Caiaphas  the  High  Priest,  acting  as  an  authorized  (though  a 
wicked)  magistrate  of  his  people.  Matt,  xxvi  :  63,  64.  When 
the  Chief  Priest  said:  "I  adjure  Thee  (I  swear  Thee)  by  the 
living  God,"  Christ,  who  had  before  refused  to  respond,  imme- 
diately gave  an  affirmative  answer,  thereby  taking  the  oath, 
tendered  Him.  Let  it  be  noticed,  also,  that  in  this  He  was  act- 
ing in  His  human  capacity.  These  New  Testament  examples 
also  effectually  estop  the  plea,  untenable  in  all  cases,  that  legis- 
lation given  by  Moses  was  corrected  by  Christ,  so  that  the  lat- 
ter made  things  sins,  which  Moses  made  right.  For  all  this 
was  under  the  new  dispensation,  or  at  least  after  the  utterance 
of  the  commands  by  Christ  which  furnish  the  argument  of  the 
Quakers. 

Those  commands  are  found  in  Matt,  v  :  34  and  37 ;  Jas.  v  : 
12.  Their  claim  is,  that  these  prohibitions 
in^N^ewTifameS!''^  ^^^  meant  to  forbid  oaths  under  all  possible 
circumstances  ;  that  the  language  is  absolute, 
and  we  have  no  right  to  limit  it.  I  reply,  that  if  this  view  be 
pressed,  all  that  is  gained  will  be  to  represent  Christ  and  Paul 
as  expressly  violating  the  new  law.  An  understanding  of  the 
circumstances  relieves  the  case.  The  Jewish  elders  had  cor- 
rupted the  third  commandment  by  teaching  that  a  man  might 
interlard  his  common  conversation  with  oaths,  provided  he  did 
not  swear  falsely.  They  also  taught  that  one  might  swear  by 
anything  else  than  the  name  of  God,  as  his  own  head,  or  Jeru- 
salem. Against  these  corruptions  our  Saviour's  precept  is 
aimed.  In  our  common  intercourse  we  are  not  to  swear  at  all, 
because  the  suitable  and  solemn  juncture  is  lacking.  When 
that  juncture  is  present,  what  more  reasonable  than  the  appeal 
to  God;  that  God  who  is,  by  His  omniscience  and  providence, 
the  actual  witness  and  umpire  of  all  such  declarations.  But, 
in  conclusion,  it  is  a  great  abuse  for  the  magistrate  to  multiply 
oaths  on  frivolous  occasions. 


LECTURE  XXXII. 

FIRST  TABLE.     (4th  COMMANDMENT.) 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  required  and  forbidden  in  the  Fourth  Commandment? 
Shorter  Catechism,  Qu.  57-62.     Larger  Cat.,  Qu.  115-121. 

2.  How  is  tlie  Sabbatli  to  be  sanctified  ? 

Larger  Cat,  Qu.  117-120.     Ridgeley,  Qu.  117,  118. 

3.  Give  the  practical  reasons  for  the  careful  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 
Larger  Cat.,  Qu.  120,  121.     Justin  Edwards'  "Sabbath-Manual." 

4.  Is  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day  now  binding.  jti7-e  divino?  (a)  Because 
the  Sabbath  was  in  force  before  Moses ;  (b)  The  commandment  is  moral  and  perpet- 
ual, not  merely  positive;  (c)  The  New  Testament  teaches  this,  when  properly 
explained;  (d)  ist  day  substituted  for  7th  by  divine  authority;  (e)  History  of  opin- 
ions and  usages. 

Jonathan  Edwards'  Sermons,  13,  14,  15,  Vol.  vi.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  13, 
14.  Calvin,  Inst.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  8,  §  28-34.  Commentaries  on  Matt,  xii,  and  Col. 
ii  :  16,  17.  Appendix,  to  Fairbairn's  Typology,  2nd  Edit.  Dr.  Green's  Lec- 
tures 42,  43.  Neander's  "  Planting  and  Training,"  Vol.  i,  ch.  v,.  Augsburg 
Conf.  and  Luther's  Catechism.  Genevan  Cat.  of  Calvin.  Racovian  Cat.. 
Dr.  Nicholas  Bound,  " Sabbatum  Veteris  et  Novi  Test."  Hodge,  Theol.,  Vol. 
iii,  ch.  19,  ^  8. 

'  I  ^HERE  is,  perhaps,  no  subject  of  Christian  practice  on  which 

there  is,  among  sincere  Christians,  more  practical  diversity 

and  laxity  of  conscience    than    the    duty   of 

^Diversity  Accounted    5^^^^^!,  observance.     We  find  that,  in  theory, 

almost  all  Protestants  now  profess  the  views 
once  peculiar  to  Presbyterians  and  other  Puritans ;  but,  in 
actual  life,  there  is,  among  good  people,  a  variety  of  usages, 
from  a  laxity  which  would  almost  have  satisfied  the  party  of 
Archbishop  Laud,  up  to  the  sacred  strictness  of  the  "  Sabba- 
tarians" whom  he  and  his  adherents  reviled  and  persecuted.  It 
is  a  curious  question  :  how  it  has  come  about  that  the  con- 
sciences of  devout  and  sincere  persons  have  allowed  them  such 
hcense  of  disobedience  to  a  duty  acknowledged  and  important ; 
while  on  other  points  of  obligation  equally  undisputed,  the 
Christian  world  endeavors,  at  least,  to  maintain  the  appearance 
of  uniform  obedience.  The  solution  is  probably  to  be  found, 
in  part,  in  the  historical  fact,  of  which  many  intelligent  Chris- 
tians are  not  aware — that  the  communions  founded  at  the 
Reformation,  were  widely  and  avowedly  divided  in  opinion  as 
to  the  perpetuity  of  the  Sabbath  obligation.  A  number  of  the 
Reformation  churches,  including  some  of  the  purest,  professed 
that  they  saw  no  obligation  in  the  Scriptures  to  any  peculiar 
Sabbath  observance;  and  the  neglect  of  everything  except 
attendance  on  the  public  exercise  of  Christianity,  and  that  ces- 
sation of  secular  labor  required  by  secular  statutes  was,  in  them, 
at  least  consistent.  Now  the  descendants  of  these  communions, 
in  this  mixed  country,  live  dispersed  among  the  descendants  of 
Presbyterians  and  Puritans  ;  and  while  they  no  longer  defend 
366 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.   '  36/ 

the  looser  theory  of  their  forefathers,  they  retain  the  tradition- 
ary practices  and  customs  in  their  use  of  the  sacred  day.  Thus, 
by  example  and  the  general  intermingling  of  religions,  a  remiss 
usage  is  propagated,  which  is  far  beneath  the  present  professed 
theory  of  Protestant  Christendom.  And  hence,  we  conceive 
that  it  will  be  interesting  and  profitable  to  give  a  history  of 
opinions  on  this  subject,  before  we  proceed  to  that  full  discus- 
sion of  the  whole  grounds  of  our  belief  and  practice  which  we 
shall  attempt. 

It  may  be  stated    then,  in    general   terms,  that  since  the 

primitive    times  of    Christianity,  two  diverse 
l;JZt.  °  P  ^  '^  ^  °  " '    opinions  have  prevailed  in  the  Christian  world. 

The  first  is  that  .adopted  by  the  Romish,  Lu- 
theran, and  most  of  the  continental  communions  in  Europe,  in- 
cluding, it  must  be  confessed,  those  founded  by  Calvin,  This 
theory  teaches  that  the  proper  sanctification  of  one  day  from 
every  seven  was  a  ceremonial,  typical,  and  Jewish  custom, 
established  when  the  Levitical  institutions  were  introduced ; 
and,  of  course,  abrogated  by  the  better  dispensation,  along  with 
the  rest  of  the  typical  shadows.  The  Lord's  day  is,  indeed, 
worthy  of  observance  as  a  Christian  festival,  because  it  is  the 
weekly  memorial  of  the  blessed  resurrection,  and  the  example 
of  the  primitive  Church  commends  it ;  not  because  its  obli- 
gation is  now  jure  divino.  The  cessation  of  our  worldly  labors 
is  a  beneficent  and  commendable  civil  institution  ;  and  while 
the  magistrates  enjoin  it,  is,  for  this  reason,  of  course  to  be  prac- 
tised by  all  good  citizens.  Public  and  associated  worship  is  also 
a  duty  of  Christians  ;  and,  in  order  that  it  may  be  associated,  it 
must  be  upon  a  stated  day  and  hour ;  and  what  day  so  appro- 
priate as  this,  already  famous  for  the  great  event  of  the  new 
dispensation,  and  set  apart  by  civil  laws  from  the  purposes  of 
business.  But  this  is  all.  To  observe  the  whole  day  as  a  reli- 
gious rest,  under  the  supposition  of  a  religious  obligation,  would 
be  to  Judaize,  to  remand  ourselves  to  the  bondage  of  the  old 
and  darker  dispensation. 

The  second  opinion  is  that  embodied  in  the  Westminster 
symbols,  and,  to  the  honour  of  Presbyterianism  be  it  said,  first 
avowed  in  modern  times,  even  among  Protestants,  by  that  party 
in  England.  This  is,  that  the  setting  apart  of  some  stated  por- 
tion of  our  time  to  the  special  and  exclusive  worship  of  God,  is 
a  duty  of  perpetual  and  moral  obligation  (as  distinguished  from 
postive  or  ceremonial),  and  that  our  Maker  has,  from  the  cre- 
ation, and  again  on  Sinai,  appointed  for  all  races  and  ages,  that 
this  portion  shall  be  one  day  out  of  seven.  But  when  the  cere- 
monial dispensation  of  Levi  was  superadded  to  this  and  the 
other  institutions  of  the  original,  patriarchal  religion,  the  seventh 
day  did)  in  addition,  become  a  type  and  a  Levitical  holy-day  ; 
and  the  theory  admits  that  this  feature  has  passed  away  with  the 
Jewish  ceremonial.     After  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  the  per- 


368  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

petual  Divine  obligation  of  a  religious  rest  was  transferred  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  thence  to  the  end  of  the  world, 
the  Lord's  day  is  the  Christian's  Sabbath,  by  Divine  and  apos- 
tolic appointment,  and  is  to  be  observed  with  the  same  religious 
spirit  enjoined  upon  the  patriarchs,  and  the  Israelites,  abating 
those  features  which  proceeded  from  its  ceremonial  use  among 
the  latter,  and  from  their  theocratic  government. 

Among  the  advocates  of  the  first  opinion  is  to  be  adduced 
first  the  Roman  Catholic  communion.     This 
apa     pinion.  statement  must,  however,  be  made  with  quali- 

fication ;  for  the  "Romish  Catechism"  of  Pope  Pius  V.,  em- 
bodying the  opinions  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (P.  iii,  ch.  iv), 
treats  of  the  Lord's  day  more  scripturally,  in  some  respects, 
than  many  Protestants.  But  this  correctness  of  opinion  is  griev- 
ously marred  by  the  doctrine,  that  the  other  Church  holidays 
are  sustained  by  equal  authority  with  the  Lord's  day — the 
authoritative  tradition  of  the  Church.  Bellarmine  also  argues 
that  it  must  be  allowable  to  the  true  Church  to  make  the  obser- 
vance of  sacred  days  of  human  appointment  binding  on  the 
conscience,  because  otherwise  the  Church  would  have  no  sacred 
days  at  all,  since  none  whatever  are  enjoined  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  reasoning  obviously  proceeds  upon  the  assumption 
that  there  is  no  other  sort  of  obligation  for  the  Lord's  day  than 
for  a  Church  festival.  The  well-known  practice  of  Romish 
Christians,  prevalent  in  all  Popish  countries,  and  unrebuked  by 
the  priesthood,  sustains  exactly  that  theory  of  Sabbath  observ- 
ance which  we  first  described.  After  the  duties  of  confession 
and  hearing  mass  are  performed  in  the  morning,  the  rest  of  the 
holy-day  is  unhesitatingly  devoted  to  idleness,  amusements,  or 
actual  vice. 

The  Lutheran  communion,  as  ordered  by  Luther,  Melanc- 
thon,  and  their  coadjutors,  held  that  it  was 
pinion.  lawful  and  proper  for  Church  authorities  to 
ordain  days,  and  rites  not  contrary  to  the  letter  or  spirit  of 
Scripture,  but  additional  to  those  appointed  therein.  It  was, 
indeed,  one  of  the  most  constant  and  noble  parts  of  their 
testimony  against  Rome,  that  it  was  spiritual  tyranny  for  any 
Church  authority,  however  legitimate,  to  ordain  anything  con- 
trary to  the  letter  or  spirit  of  Scripture,  or  to  enforce  any  ordi- 
nance of  human  authority,  however  innocent,  as  binding  on  the 
Christian  conscience,  or  as  necessary  to  acceptance  with  God. 
But  they  taught  that  the  rulers  of  the  Church  might  lawfully 
institute  rites,  ordinances  and  holy-days,  consonant  to  the  Word 
of  God,  though  additional  to  those  set  down  in  it;  and  that 
they  might  lawfully  change  such  ordinances,  from  time  to  time, 
as  convenience  and  propriety  required.  But  they  could  only 
invite,  they  could  not  compel  the  compliance  of  their  brethren  ; 
and  this  compliance  was  to  be  rendered,  not  of  necessity,  but 
from  considerations   of   Christian    comity,   peace  and  conveni-- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  369 

ence.  When  days  or  ordinances  additional  to  St'.ripture  were 
thus  enjoined,  and  thus  observed,  it  was  held  proper,  lawful  and 
praiseworthy,  in  both  rulers  and  ruled.  And  the  Lutheran  sym- 
bols expressly  assert  that  it  was  by  this  kind  of  Church  au- 
thority, and  not  jure  divino,  that  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
day  obtained  among  Christians ;  and  that  it  could  not  be  scrip- 
turally  made  binding  on  the  conscience  of  Christians  any  more 
than  the  observance  of  Easter  or  Christmas,  or  of  any  other 
day  newly  instituted  by  a  Church  court,  in  accordance  with 
Christian  convenience  and  edification.  They  also  teach  that  the 
Sabbath,  with  its  strict  and  enforced  observances,  was  purely  a 
Levitical  institution.  In  the  28th  article  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, which  treats  of  "  the  power  of-  the  bishops  or  clergy," 
we  find  the  following  [We  will  take  the  liberty  of  italicising 
those  phrases  which  we  wish  to  be  particularly  weighed] : 
"  What,  then,  should  be  held  concerning  Sunday  and  other 
similar  Church  ordinances  and  ceremonies  ?"  To  this  our  party 
make  the  following  reply :  That  the  bishops  or  pastors  may 
make  regulations,  in  order  that  things  may  be  carried  on  orderly 
in  the  Church,  not  in  order  to  obtain  the  grace  of  God,  nor  yet 
in  order  to  atone  for  sins,  or  to  bind  the  consciences  of  men 
with  them,  to  hold  them  as  necessary  services  of  God,  and  to 
regard  them  as  if  they  commit  sin,  if  they  break  them  without 
offence  to  others.  Thust  St.  Paul,  in  the  Corinthians,  ordains 
that  the  women  in  the  congregation  should  cover  their  heads ; 
I  Cor.  xi :  5.  *  *  *  *  "In  like  mannef  is  the  regulation 
concerning  Sunday,  concerning  Easter,  concerniftg  Pentecost,  and 
the  like  holy-days  and  rites.  Those,  then,  who  are  of  opinion 
that  the  regulation  of  Sunday  instead  of  the  Sabbath,  was 
established  as  a  thing  necessary,  err  very  much.  For  the  Holy 
Scripture  has  abolished  the  Sabbath,  and  it  teaches  that  all  cere- 
monies of  the  old  law,  since  the  revelation  of  the  Gospel,  may 
be  discontinued.  And  yet,  as  it  was  of  need  to  ordain  a  certain 
day,  so  that  the  people  might  know  when  they  should  assemble, 
tJie  Christian  Church  ordained  Sunday  for  that  very  purpose,  and 
possessed  rather  more  inclination  and  willingness  for  this  alter- 
ation, in  order  that  the  people  might  have  an  example  of  Chris- 
tian liberty,  that  they  might  know  that  neither  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath,  nor  of  any  other  day,  is  indispensable."  Me- 
lancthon,  in  the  8th  article  of  his  "  apology,"  ("  Of  human 
ordinances  in  the  Church,'")  briefly  asserts  the  same  view.  "  Fur- 
ther, the  most  ancient  ordinances  however  in  the  Church,  as  the 
tliree  chief  festivals,  Sundays,  and  the  like,  which  were  estab- 
lished for  the  sake  of  order,  union  and  tranquility,  we  observe 
with  willingness.  And  with  regard  to  these,  our  teachers  preach 
to  the  people  in  the  most  commendatory  manner ;  in  the  mean- 
time, however,  holding  forth  the  view,  that  they  do  not  justify 
before  God." 

The  evangehcal  Christians  of  Germany  seem  now  to  appre- 
24* 


370  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

hend  the  prime  necessity  of  a  stricter  Sabbath-observance  for 
the  interests  of  piety  ;  and  have  recently  combined  to  promote 
it.  But  it  will  be  vain  for  them  to  attempt  to  engraft  such  a 
reform  on  this  doctrinal  theory  of  Lutheranism.  No  plausible 
tampering  with  a  doctrine  so  fundamentally  erroneous  will 
suffice.  The  connection  between  a  false  theory  and  a  vicious 
practice  is  too  inevitable.  If  the  reform  is  to  be  established 
successfully,  its  foundation  must  be  laid  in  the  retraction  of 
these  opinions,  and  the  explicit  adoption  of  the  Presbyterian 
theory  of  the  Lord's  day. 

It  may  here  be  added,  that  the  Mennonite  Church,  both  in 
Europe  and  America,  holds  substantially  the  Lutheran  ideas  of 
the  Sabbath,  and  that  their  practice  is  influenced  by  them  in  a 
similar  way.  When  this  communion,  led  by  Menno  Simonis,  set 
about  ridding  themselves  of  the  reproach  of  fanatical  Anabap- 
tism,  they  were  careful  to  assume  so  much  of  the  prevalent 
religion  as  they  could  consistently  with  their  essential  peculi- 
arities, in  order  to  substantiate  their  plea  that  they  were  no 
longer  a  radical,  political  sect,  but  a  proper,  evangelical  denomi- 
nation. The  prevalent  Protestantism  of  those  countries  was 
Lutheran  ;  and  hence  the  theology  of  the  Mennonites,  and  their 
ideas  of  Sabbath  observance,  are  largely  Lutheran.  The  articles 
of  their  most  current  confession  are  silent  concerning  the  obser- 
vance of  the  Lord's  day. 

Next  in  order  should   be  mentioned   the  opinions  of  the 

Socinian  sect.     The  Racovian  Catechism,  the 

Socmian  Opinion.       recognized   Confession   of  this    body,  in  the 

1 6th   century,  states   their  -erroneous   belief  with   unmistakable 

precision  and  brevity.     Under  the  fourth  commandment  are  the 

following  questions  and  answers  : 

"  What  is  the  fourth  commandment?  " 
"  Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy." 
"  What  dost  thou  believe  concerning  this  commandment?  " 
"  I  believe   that  it  is  removed  under  the   new  covenant,  in 
the  way  in  which  other  ceremonies,  as  they  are  called,  are  taken 
away." 

"  Why,  then,  was  it  inserted  in  the  decalogue  ?  " 
"  Thus  that  it  might  be  manifest  the  most  absolute  part  of 
the  Mosaic  law  was  not  perfect,  and  that  some  indication  might 
exist  of  this  fact,  that  a  law  was  to  succeed  the  Mosaic  law,  by 
far  more  perfect,  the  law,  namely,  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

"  Did,  or  did  not,  Christ  ordain  that  we  should  observe  the 
day  which  they  call  Lord's  day,  in  place  of  the  Sabbath  ?  " 

"  Not  at  ail ;  since  the  religion  of  Christ  entirely  removes 
the  distinction  of  days,  just  as  it  does  the  other  ceremonies,  as 
they  are  called  ;  as  the  Apostle  clearly  writes  in  Col.  ii  :  i6. 
But  since  we  see  that  the  Lord's  day  has  been  celebrated  from 
of  old  time  by  Christians,  we  permit  the  same  liberty  to  all 
Christians." 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  37 1 

A  day  of  religious  rest,  then,  according  to  Socinians  is 
utterly  abolished  by  Christ,  just  as  the  other  Levitical  ceremo- 
nies. 

As  to  the  ground  held  by  the  Anglican  Church,  concerning 
the  authority  of  the  Lord's  day,  its  stand- 
ca^cCrch.''^  "^"^^^  ards  are  indecisive.  It  holds  the  same  opin- 
ion with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  concerning 
the  power  of  the  Church  to  ordain  rites,  ceremonies,  and  holy- 
days,  additional,  but  not  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  ;  but  it  has 
not  observed  the  scriptural  modesty  of  the  Lutherans,  in  enforc- 
ing the  uniform  observance  of  these  human  appointments. 
While  its  theory  on  this  point  is  not  greatly  more  exaggerated 
in  words  than  that  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  its  practice  has 
been  unspeakably  more  tyrannical.  The  twentieth  of  the 
"Thirty-nine  Articles,"  ("  Of  the  authority  of  the  Church,")- 
says  :  "  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  or  ceremonies, 
and  authority  in  controversies  of  faith ;  and  yet  it  is  not  lawful 
for  the  Church  to  ordain  anything  that  is  contrary  to  God's 
Word  written,  &c."  The  thirty-fourth  says :  "  Whosoever, 
through  his  private  judgment,  willingly  and  purposely  doth 
openly  break  the  traditions  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church, 
which  be  not  repugnant  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  be  ordained 
and  approved  by  common  authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked 
openly,  (that  other  may  fear  to  do  the  like,)  as  he  that  offended 
against  the  common  order  of  the  Church,  and  hurteth  the 
authority  of  the  magistrate,  and  woundeth  the  consciences  of 
the  weak  brethren."  The  articles  contain  no  nearer  reference 
to  the  Lord's  day.  "Our  purpose  in  quoting  these  words  will  be 
seen  in  connection  with  the  following  from  the  thirteenth  of  the 
ecclesiastical  canons  and  constitutions  : 

All    manner   of    persons    within    the    Church    of  England, 
"  Due  celebration  of   shall  from  henceforth  celebrate  and  keep  the 
Sundays    and     holy-    Lord's    day,    commonly  called   Sunday,   and 
^^^'  other  holy  days,    according    to    God's    holy 

will  and  pleasure,  and  the  orders  of  the  Church  of  England  pre- 
scribed in  that  behalf,"  &c. 

The  Church  of  England,  then,  is  not,  by  her  standards, 
definitely  committed  to  that  loose  theory  which  we  have 
unfolded ;  but  the  association  of  Sundays  and  holy-days,  as 
equal  in  their  claims,  and  the  nature  of  their  authority,  is  sig- 
nificant. The  Church,  according  to  these  articles,  has  power  to 
ordain  days,  additional  to  those  appointed  in  Scripture,  pro- 
vided they  are  not  condemned  in  Scripture  ;  and  to  enforce 
their  observance  by  censures.  And  it  is  plainly  implied  that 
the  obligation  to  keep  a  Sunday  is  only  of  the  same  character 
with  the  obligation  to  keep  an  Epiphany  or  Good  Friday. 
Both  are  alike  according  to  God's  holy  will ;  but  it  is  God's 
will,  not  pronounced  in  Scripture,  but  through  the  authoritative 
decree    of  the    Church.      It   was   the    primitive    Church    which 


372  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

introduced  the  festivals  of  Epiphany  and  others  ;  and  it  was  the 
same  authority  which  introduced  Sunday.  As  the  thirty- 
tourth  article  claims  that  the  same  church  authority  which  made, 
can  unmake  or  alter  these  appointments,  it  would  seem  that  even 
the  Lord's  day  might  be  liable  to  change  by  human  authority. 
We  proceed  now  to  state  the  opinions  of  Calvin,  and  some 
„  .  .        r  r-  1  •       of  the  Reformed  Churches.     By   consulting 

Opinion    of     Calvm,      ^,.,t  •  /n  ^  r,\      •  -hi 

Calvm  s  Institutes,  ( B.  2,  chap,  o),  it  will  be 
seen  that  his  views  of  Sabbath-observance  are  substantially 
those  of  Luther.  He  states  that,  among  the  Israelites,  there 
were  three  grounds  for  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day : 
first,  that  it  might  be  a  type  of  that  cessation  of  the  works  of 
self-righteousness  which  true  believers  practice ;  second,  that 
there  might  be  a  stated  day  for  public  worship  ;  and  third,  that 
domestic  animals  and  servants  might  enjoy  a  merciful  rest  from 
bodily  labor.  Only  the  last  two  of  these  grounds  exist,  accord- 
ing to  Calvin,  under  the  New  Testament.  Hence  he  says  (ch. 
8>  §  33)  •  "  We  celebrate  it  not  with  scrupulous  rigor,  as  a 
ceremony  which  we  conceive  to  be  a  figure  of  some  spiritual 
mystery,  but  only  use  it  as  a  remedy  necessary  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  order  in  the  Church."  In  the  previous  section  he  says  : 
"  Though  the  Sabbath  is  abrogated,  yet  it  is  still  customary 
among  us  to  assemble  on  stated  days,  for  hearing  the  Word, 
for  breaking  the  mystic  bread,  and  for  public  prayers  ;  and  also 
to  allow  servants  and  laborers  a  remission  from  their  labor." 
And  in  section  34  :  "  Thus  vanish  all  the  dreams  of  false  proph- 
ets, who  in  past  ages  have  infected  the  people  with  a  Jewish 
notion,  affirming  that  nothing  but  the  ceremonial  part  of  this 
commandment,  which,  according  to  them,  is  the  appointment 
of  the  seventh  day,  has  been  abrogated  ;  but  that  the  moral 
part  of  it,  that  is,  the  observance  of  one  day  in  seven,  still 
remains.  But  this  is  only  changing  the  day  in  contempt  of  the 
Jews,  while  they  retain  the  same  opinion  of  the  holiness  of  a 
day ;  for,  on  this  principle,  the  same  mysterious  signification 
would  be  attributed  to  particular  days,  which  formerlly  obtained 
among  the  Jews,"  And  in  the  same  tenour,  he  remarks  upon 
Col.  ii  ;  16  :  ("  Let  no  man,  therefore,  judge  you  in  meat  or  in 
drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy-day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of 
the  Sabbath-days  "  "  Such  a  distinction  (of  days)  suited  the 
Jews,  to  observe  sacredly  the  appointed  days,  by  separating 
them  from  other  days.  Among  Christians,  such  a  distinction 
hath  ceased.  But,  somebody  will  say  that  we  still  retain  some 
observance  of  days.  I  answer,  that  we  by  no  means  observe 
them,  as  if  there  were  any  religion  in  holy-days,  or  as  if  it 
were  not  right  to  labor  then  ;  but  the  regard  is  paid  to  polity 
and  good  order,  not  to  the  days." 

To  those  who  are  aware  of  the  close  relationship  between 
Anninian    Opinion.    Socinianism  and  Arminianism,  it  will  not  be 

surprising   that  the    latter  sect,   at   its  birth. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  373 

adopted  an  idea  of  the  Lord's  day  only  less  relaxed  than  that 
of  the  former.  It  is  unnecessary  to  multiply  citations ;  a  single 
passage  from  Limborch,  one  of  the  distinguished  heads  of  their 
seminary  in  Amsterdam,  in  his  commentary  on  Romans  xiv  :  5, 
will  be  both  sufficiently  distinct  and  authoritative  : 

Romans  xiv  :  5.  "  Another  esteemeth  every  day  alike," 
viz  :  (explains  Limborch)  "  The  converts  to  Christ  from  among 
the  Gentiles,  on  whom  the  burden  of  the  ritual  law  was  never 
imposed,  did  not  recognize  this  distinction  of  days,  but  esteemed 
all  days  equal,  and  one  no  more  noble  than  another.  It  is 
true,  indeed,  that  the  apostles  and  primitive  Church  were 
already  accustomed  to  assemble  in  sacred  meetings  the  first 
day  of  the  week  ;  but  not  because  they  believed  that  day  more 
eminent  than  any  other,  nor  because  they  believed  the  rest  of 
that  day  to  be  a  part  of  Divine  worship,  as  the  rest  of  the 
seventh  day  had  been  under  the  law ;  nor  that  it  must  be 
observed  with  rigor,  as  formerly,  under  the  law.  By  no  means  : 
but  because  it  was  convenient  to  designate  some  time  for 
sacred  exercises :  and  that  a  man  might  the  better  be  at  leisure 
for  them,  rest  also  from  daily  labor  was  required.  The  first  day 
of  the  week,  on  which  the  Lord  rose  from  the  dead,  (which  is 
thus  called  the  Lord's  day.  Rev.  i  :  10),  seemed  most  meet  to 
be  destined  to  these  services ;  but  not  because  it  was  judged 
more  holy,  or  because  a  rigid  rest  and  cessation  of  all  work 
in  observing  that  day  was  a  part  of  Divine  worship.  For  thus, 
it  would  have  been  not  a  taking  off  of  the  yoke,  but  a  shifting 
of  it." 

On  the  whole,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Protestant  Churches 

„    ,.      ^  1    TT  of  continental  Europe  have  all  occupied  this 

Continental    Usage.  .       ^ ,  .  ^        .  ^        ^     , 

ground,   concernmg  the   sanctihcation  01  the 

l^ord's  day.  These  Churches,  properly  speaking,  have  never 
had  the  Sabbath  ;  for  it  has  only  been  to  them  a  holy-day, 
ranking  no  higher  than  Christmas  or  Easter,  or  a  season  set 
apart  by  civil  enactment,  or  a  convenient  arrangement  for  con- 
cert in  public  worship;  and  not  a  sacred  day  of  Divine  appoint- 
ment. The  manner  in  which  it  is  desecrated,  commonly,  through- 
out the  Protestant  States  of  the  continent  is  shocking  to  the  feel- 
ings and  usages  of  strict,  American  Protestants ;  and  seems  to 
them  to  approximate  only  too  much  to  the  license  of  Popery. 
But  we  have  now  seen  that  this  desecration  is  not  an  accidental 
irregularity :  it  is  the  natural  and  proper  result  of  the  theory  in 
which  these  Churches  have  been  educated  since  the  Reforma- 
tion. That  the  greatest  and  best  of  the  Reformers  should  have 
failed  to  embrace  the  truth  concerning  the  Lord's  day,  is  indeed 
no  subject  of  surprise.  That  men  emerging  at  a  bound  from 
the  meridian  darkness  of  Popery  into  Gospel  light  should  see 
all  things  correctly  at  first,  was  not  to  be  expected.  That  they 
saw  so  many  things  "  eye  to  eye,"  and  erred  in  so  few,  is  a 
wonder,  only  to  be  explained  by  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of 


374  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

all  truth.  It  is  wholesome  to  become  acquainted  with  their  kw 
errors,  and  to  explode  them ;  for  it  will'  tend  to  correct  that 
overweening  spirit  of  party  which  ever  prompts  Christians  to 
call  themselves  by  the  name  of  men,  like  those  who  said ;  "  I 
am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas."  But  it  may 
well  be  inquired  also,  whether  a  part  of  the  spiritual  decline 
which  has  almost  extinguished  the  true  light  in  the  ancient 
seats  of  Luther,  Calvin,  Witsius  and  De  Moor,  is  not  due  to 
this  misconception  of  Sabbath  obligation,  and  its  consequent 
neglect.  The  sacred  observance  of  one  day  in  seven  is  God's 
appointed  means  for  the  cultivation  of  piety :  when  piety  van- 
ishes, orthodoxy  necessarily  follows  it  in  due  time. 

As  has  been  already  indicated,  the  first  successful  attempt 
,  to  establish  the  theory   of  a  Christian  Sab- 

bath, since  the  Reformation,  was  made  among 
the  English  Puritans.  About  the  year  1595,  a  dissenting  minis- 
ter of  Suffolk,  Dr.  Nicholas  Bound,  published  a  book  entitled 
"  Sabbatian  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti,  or  The  True  Doctrine  of 
the  Sabbath,"  in  which  he  advocated  the  view  afterwards 
adopted  by  the  Westminister  Assembly.  This  treatise  had 
great  currency  among  the  devout  dissenters  and  evangelical 
churchmen,  and  was  the  beginning  of  a  discussion  which  con- 
tinued, under  repeated  attempts  for  its  suppression  by  high 
church  authorities,  until  the  doctrines  of  the  Puritans  became 
those  of  the  bulk  of  sincere  Christians  throughout  Great  Brit- 
ain and  the  American  colonies.  Archbishop  Whitgift  con- 
demned Dr.  Bound's  book  to  suppression.  James  I.,  published 
his  Declaration  of  Sports,  encouraging  the  people  to  dancing, 
trials  of  archery,  erecting  May-poles,  and  other  amusements,  at 
any  hours  of  the  Lord's  day  not  occupied  by  public  worship. 
The  flood  of  iqimoralities  introduced  by  this  measure  became 
so  odious,  that  the  secular  magistrates,  at  the  urgent  instance 
of  the  people  themselves,  suppressed  the  Sunday  sports. 
Under  Charles  L,  Laud  invoked  the  aid  of  his  clergy  to  re- 
establish them  ;  and  the  strange  spectacle  was  seen  of  the  laity 
petitioning  against  the  profane  desecration  of  the  sacred  day, 
and  their  spiritual  guides  compelling  them  to  perpetrate  it ! 
(Neal,  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,   vol.  i,  ch.  viii ;  vol.2,  ch.  2-5. 

The  first  great  Synod  which  ever  propounded,  in  modern 
ages,  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  day, 
bly.  ^^ '"'"^  ^'  ^^^'"'  was  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Their  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  which  is  now  the  standard 
of  the  Scotch,  Irish  and  American  Presbyterian,  and  of  many 
independent  Churches,  states  the  truth  so  luminously,  (ch.  xxi  : 
§  7-8),  that  we  shall  repeat  their  words  here,  though  familiar,  as 
the  best  statement  of  the  proposition  and  text  of  our  subse- 
quent discussion. 

"  Sec.  7.  As  it   is  of  the  law  of  nature  that,  in  general,  a 
due  proportion  of  time  be  set  apart  for  the  worship  of  God  ;  so- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  375 

in  His  word,  by  a  positive,  moral,  and  perpetual  commandment, 
binding  all  men,  in  all  ages,  He  hath  particularly  appointed  one 
day  in  seven  for  a  Sabbath,  to  be  kept  holy  unto  Him  ;  which 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
was  the  last  day  of  the  week ;  and,  from  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  was  changed  into  the  first  day  of  the  week,  which  in 
Scripture  is  called  the  Lord's  day,  and  is  to  be  continued  to  the 
end  of  the  world  as  the  Christian  Sabbath." 

"  Sec.  8.  This  Sabbath  is  then  kept  holy  unto  the  Lord, 
when  men  after  a  due  preparing  of  their  hearts,  and  ordering 
of  their  common  affairs  beforehand,  do  not  only  observe  an 
holy  rest  all  the  day  from  their  own  works,  words,  and  thoughts, 
about  their  worldly  employments  and  recreations  ;  but  also  are 
taken  up  the  whole  time  in  the  public  and  private  exercises  of 
His  worship,  and  in  the  duties  of  necessity  and  mercy." 

As  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
were  generally  adopted  by  the  Calvinistic  dissenters  of  England 
and  America,  they  also  embraced  these  views  of  the  Sabbath. 
The  reader  will  now  easily  comprehend,  from  this  historical  re- 
view, what  would  naturally  be  the  views  of  these  several  denomi- 
nations concerning  Sabbath-observance,  and  what  is  the  legiti- 
mate source  of  that  diversity,  vagueness  and  license,  which  are 
exhibited  in  this  country,  in  our  Sabbath  usages.  To  partic- 
ularize further  would  be  unnecessary,  and  might  be  supposed 
invidious. 

We  proceed  now  to  the  attempt  to  give  a  full  but  summary 

^  , ,    ,     ^         statement  of  the  grounds  upon  which   Pres- 
2.      Sabbath     Com-     1      .      •  ,     ,1  1       .    ■  r         /^i     •   ^• 

mand  moral.  bytenans  assert  the   doctrme  01  a   Christian 

Sabbath  as  it  is  set  forth  in  their  Confession. 
And  first :  it  is  most  obvious,  that  if  the  Sabbath-law  contained  in 
the  decalogue  is  "  a  positive,  moral  and  perpetual  command- 
ment, binding  all  men,  in  all  ages,"  and  not  ceremonial  and  pos- 
itive, like  the  Jewish  laws  of  meats,  new  moons  and  sacrifices, 
it  cannot  have  passed  awa^  along  with  the  other  temporary 
shadows  of  Judaism.  If  it  was  not  introduced  by  the  Leviti- 
cal  economy  for  the  first  time,  but  was  in  force  before,  and  if 
it  was  binding  not  on  Jews  only,  but  on  all  men,  then  the  abro- 
gation of  that  economy  cannot  have  abrogated  that  which  it 
did  not  institute.  The  Apostle  Paul  justifies  us  here,  by  using 
an  argument  exactly  parallel  in  a  similar  case.  "  The  covenant 
that  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law  which  was 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  cannot  disannul."  Gal.  iii  : 
17.  Upon  the  question  whether  the  fourth  commandment  was 
of  Mosaic  origin,  or  earlier,  the  fathers  were  divided  :  and  this 
fact  is  another  among  the  many  proofs  of  their  slender  acquaint- 
ance with  the  Hebrew  literature  and  antiquities. 

That  it  is  a  positive,  moral,  and  perpetual  command,  we 
argue  from  the  facts  that  there  is  a  reason  in  the  nature  of 
things,  making  such  an  institution  necessary  to  man's   religious 


3/6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

interests  ;  and  that  this  necessity  is  substantially  the  same  in  all 
ages  and  nations.  That  it  is  man's  duty  to  worship  God, 
none  will  dispute.  Nor  will  it  be  denied  that  this  worship 
should  be  in  part  social ;  because  man  is  a  being  of  social  affec- 
tions, and  subject  to  social  obligations;  and  because  one  of  the 
great  ends  of  worship  is  the  display  of  the  Divine  glory  before 
our  fellow-creatures.  Social  worship  cannot  be  conducted 
W'ithout  the  appointment  of  a  stated  day  ;  and  what  more  reas- 
onable than  that  the  Divine  authority,  who  is  the  object  of  this 
worship,  should  meet  this  necessity,  by  Himself  fixing  the  day 
for  all  mankind  ?  And  even  for  the  cultivation  of  our  indi- 
vidual devotion,  a  periodical  season  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
creatures  of  habit  and  of  finite  capacities,  like  us.  What  is 
not  regularly  done  will  soon  be  omitted  ;  for  periodical  recur- 
rence is  the  very  foundation  of  habit.  Unless  these  spiritual 
thoughts  and  exercises  were  attached  to  some  certain  season, 
they  would  inevitably  be  pushed  out  of  the  minds  of  carnal 
and  sensuous  beings  like  man,  by  the  cares  of  this  world.  Now, 
when  it  is  our  duty  to  perform  a  certain  work,  it  is  also  our  duty 
to  employ  all  the  necessary  means  for  it.  The  question, 
whether  the  Sabbath  command  is  moral  or  positive,  seems, 
therefore,  to  admit  of  a  very  simple  solution.  Whether  one 
day  in  six,  or  one  in  eight,  might  not  have  seemed  to  the 
Divine  wisdom  admissible  for  this  purpose ;  or  which  day  of 
the  seven,  the  first  or  last,  should  be  consecrated  to  it,  or  what 
should  be  the  particular  external  ceremonies  for  its  observance  ; 
all  these  things,  we  freely  admit,  are  of  merely  positive  institu- 
tion, and  may  be  changed  by  the  Divine  Legislator.  But  that 
man  shall  observe  some  stated,  recurring  period  of  religious 
worship,  is  as  much  a  dictate  of  the  natural  reason  and  con- 
science, as  immediate  a  result  of  the  natural  relations  of  man 
to  God,  as  that  man  shall  worship  his  God  at  all.  And  no  rea- 
son can  be  shown  why  this  original  moral  obligation  was  more 
or  less  stringent  upon  the  Israelites  of  the  Mosaic  period,  than 
on  men  before  or  since  them.  If  the  ground  of  the  Sabbath 
institution,  in  the  moral  relations  existing  by  nature,  is  universal 
and  perpetual,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  expect  the  precept  to  be 
so  also  ? 

We  argue  further,  that  the  enactment  of  the  Sabbath-law 
does  not  date  from  Moses,  but  was  coeval 
Prfmeval*  ^"""^"""^  ^i^h  the  human  race.  It  is  one  of  the  two 
first  institutions  of  paradise.  The  sanctifica- 
tion  of  the  seventh  day  took  place  from  the  very  end  of  the 
week  of  creation.  (Gen.  ii  :  3.)  For  whose  observance  was 
the  day,  then,  consecrated  or  set  apart,  if  not  for  man's?  Not 
for  God's  ;  because  the  glorious  paradox  is  forever  true  of  Him, 
that  His  ineffable  quiet  is  as  perpetual  as  His  ever-active  provi- 
dence. Not  surely  for  the  angels',  but  for  Adam's.  Doubtless, 
E:!en  witnessed  the  sacred  rest  of  him  and  his  consort  from 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  377 

"  The  toil 
Of  their  sweet  gardening  labor,  which  sufficed 
To  recommend  cool  zephyr,  and  made  ease 
More  easy,  wholesome  thirst  and  appetite 
More  grateful." 

And  from  that  time  downward,  we  have  indications,  brief 
indeed,  but  as  numerous  as  we  should  expect  in  the  brief 
record  of  Genesis  and  Exodus,  and  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
Sabbath  continued  to  be  an  institution  of  the  patriarchal  relig- 
ion. A  slight  probable  evidence  of  this  may  even  be  found  in 
the  fact,  that  seven  has  ever  been  a  sacred  and  symbolical  num- 
ber, among  Patriarchs,  Israelites,  and  Pagans.  In  Genesis  we 
read  of  the  "seven  clean  beasts,"  the  "  seven  well-favoured," 
and  "seven  lean  kine,"  the  "seven  ears  of  corn,  rank  and  good." 
Now  there  is  no  natural  phenomenon  to  suggest  the  number: 
for  no  noted  heavenly  body,  or  natural  element,  revolves  pre- 
cisely in  seven  hours,  days,  weeks,  or  months.  Whence  the 
pecuHar  idea  everywhere  attached  to  the  number,  if  not  from 
the  institution  of  a  week  for  our  first  parents?  But  to  proceed 
to  more  solid  facts:  It  is  at  least  probable  that  the  "end  of 
days,"  (Gen.  iv  :  3),  rendered  in  our  version,  "  process  of  time," 
at  which  Cain  and  Abel  offered  their  sacrifices,  was  the  end  of 
the  week,  the  seventh,  or  Sabbath-day.  In  Gen.  vii  :  lo,  we 
find  God  Himself  observing  the  weekly  interval  in  the  prepara- 
tions for  the  flood.  We  find  another  clear  hint  of  the  observ- 
ance of  the  weekly  division  of  time  by  Noah  and  his  family  in 
their  floating  prison.  (Gen.  viii  :  10-12.)  The  patriarch  twice 
waited  a  period  of  seven  days  to  send  out  his  dove.  From 
Gen.  xxix  :  27,  we  learn  that  it  was  customary  among  the  patri- 
archs of  Mesopotamia,  in  the  days  of  Laban,  to  continue  a 
wedding  festival  a  week  ;  and  the  very  term  of  service  rendered 
by  Jacob  for  his  two  wives,  shows  the  use  made  of  the  number 
seven  as  the  customary  duration  of  a  contract  for  domestic  ser- 
vitude. Gen.  1  :  10,  shows  us  that  at  the  time  of  Jacob's  death, 
a  week  was  also  the  length  of  the  most  honourable  funeral 
exercises.  In  Exod.  xii  :  3-20,  we  find  the  first  institution  of 
the  passover,  when  as  yet  there  were  no  Mosaic  institutions. 
This  feast  was  also  appointed  to  last  a  week.  In  Exodus  xvi  : 
22-30,  where  we  read  the  first  account  of  the  manna,  we  find 
the  Sabbath  institution  already  in  force  ;  and  no  candid  mind 
will  say  that  this  is  the  history  of  its  first  enactment.  It  is 
spoken  of  as  a  rest  with  which  tlie  people  ought  to  have  been 
familiar.  But  the  people  had  not  yet  come  to  Sinai,  and  none 
of  its  institutions  had  been  given.  Here,  then,  we  have  the 
Sabbath's  rest  enforced  on  Israel,  before  the  ceremonial  law 
was  set  up,  and  two  weekly  variations  wrought  in  the  standing 
miracle  of  the  manna,  in  ordfer  to  facilitate  it.  And  when  at 
length  we  come  to  the  formal  command  of  the  decalogue,  it  is 
-expressed  in  terms  which  clearly  indicate  that  the  Sabbath  was 


3/8  SYLLAbUS    AND    NOTES 

an  institution  already  known,  of  which  the  obligation  was  now 
only  re-affirmed. 

The  very  fact  that  this  precept  found  a  place  in  the  awful 
"  ten  words,"  is  of  itself  strong  evidence  that 
a4ue.^™''''^^^^'"  it  is  not  a  positive  and  ceremonial,  but  a 
moral  and  perpetual  statute.  Confessedly, 
there  is  nothing  else  ceremonial  here.  An  eminent  distinction 
was  given  as  we  saw,  Lect.  30th,  to  the  subjects  of  these  ten 
commands,  by  the  mode  in  which  God  delivered  them.  How 
can  it  be  believed  that  this  one  ceremonial  precept  has  been 
thrust  in  here,  where  all  else  is  of  obligation  as  old,  and  as  uni- 
versal as  the  race  ?  This  is  strengthened  also  by  the  reflection 
that  the  ground  first  assigned  in  Genesis,  and  here  repeated  for 
its  enactment,  is  in  no  sense  Jewish  or  national.  God's  work 
of  creation  in  six  days,  and  His  rest  on  the  seventh,  have  just 
as  much  relation  to  one  tribe  of  Adam's  descendants  as  to 
another.  Note  the  contrast :  that,  in  many  cases,  when  cere- 
monial and  Jewish  commands  are  given,  like  the  passover,  a 
national  or  Jewish  event  is  assigned  as  its  ground,  like  the 
exodus  from  Egypt. 

The  assertion  that  the  Sabbath  was  coeval  with  the  human 
race,  and  was  intended  for  the  observation  of 
rion''"^'^  ''  ^  ^''''''"  all,  receives  collateral  confirmation  also  from 
the  early  traditions  concerning  it,  which  per- 
vade the  first  Pagan  literature.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that 
Homer  and  Hesiod  borrowed  from  the  books  of  Moses,  sab- 
batical allusions  which  would  have  been  to  their  hearers  unin- 
telligible. They  must  be  the  remnants  of  those  primeval  tra- 
ditions of  patriarchal  religion,  which  had  been  transferred  by 
the  descendants  of  Japheth,  to  the  isles  of  Chittim.  The  early 
allusions  to  a  sacred  seventh  day  may  be  sufficiently  exhibited 
by  citing  a  collection  of  them  from  Eusebius'  Preparatio  Evan- 
gclica  (L.  xiii,  §  13),  which  he  quotes  from  the  Stromata  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  The  latter  father  is  represented  as 
saying :  "  That  the  seventh  day  is  sacred,  not  the  Hebrews 
only,  but  the  Gentiles  also  acknowledge,  according  to  which 
the  whole  universe  of  animals  and  vegetables  revolves."  Hes- 
iod, for  instance,  thus  says  concerning  it : 

"  The  first,  the  fourth  also,  and  the  seventh  is  a  sacred  day." 
('/cotiv  ' lIuMi).)     Dierum,  line  6. 

And  again  :  "The  seventh  day  once  more,  the  splendid 
dawn  of  the  sun." 

And  Homer:  "The  seventh  day  then  arrived,  the  sacred 
day." 

Again  :   "  The  seventh  was  sacred." 

"The  seventh  dawn  was  at,  hand,  and  with  this  all  the 
series  is  completed." 

And  once  more  :  "  On  the  seventh  day,  we  left  the  stream 
of  Acheron," 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  379 

And  thus  also  writes  Callimachus  the  poet :     "  It  was  now 
the  Sabbath  day:  and  with  this  all  was  accomplished." 

Again  :  "  The  seventh  day  is  among  the  fortunate ;  yea, 
the  seventh  is  the  parent-day." 

Again :  "  The  seventh  day  is  first,  and  the  seventh  day  is 
the  complement." 

And :   "  All  things  in  the  starry  sky   are  found   in   sevens  ; 
and  shine  in  their  ordained  cycles." 

"  And  this  day,  the  elegies  of  Solon  also  proclaim  as  more 
sacred,  in  a  wonderful  mode." 

Thus  far  Clement  and  Eusebius.  Josephus,  in  his  last  book 
against  Apion,  affirms  that  "  there  could  be  found  no  city, 
either  of  the  Grecians  or  Barbarians,  who  owned  not  a  seventh 
day's  rest  from  labour."  This  of  course  is  exaggerated.  Philo, 
cotemporary  with  Josephus,  calls  the  Sabbath  kofnrj  tAvoYjIiuz. 

We  argue  once  more,  that  the  Sabbath  never  was  a  Leviti- 
cal  institution,  because  God  commanded  its 
Because  enforced  on    observance  both    by   Jews  and  Gentiles,  in 
'^  the  very   laws  of  Moses.     "  In  it  thou   shalt 

not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  thy  man^ 
servant,  nor  thy  maid-servant,  nor  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that 
is  within  thy  gates."  To  see  the  force  of  the  argument  from  this 
fact,  the  reader  must  contrast  the  jealous  care  with  which  "  the 
stranger,"  the  pagan  foreigner  residing  in  an  Israelitish  commu- 
nity, was  prohibited  from  all  share  in  their  ritual  services.  No 
foreigner  could  partake  of  the  passover — it  was  sacrilege.  He 
was  even  forbidden  to  enter  the  court  of  the  temple  where  the 
sacrifices  were  offered,  at  the  peril  of  his  life.  Now,  when  the 
foreigner  is  commanded  to  share  the  Sabbath-rest,  along  with 
the  Israelite,  does  not  this  prove  that  rest  to  be  no  ceremonial,  no 
type,  like  the  passover  and  the  altar,  but  a  universal  moral 
institution,  designed  for  Jew  and  Gentile  alike  ? 

We  have  thus  established  this  assertion  on  an  impregnable 
basis,  because  the  argument  from  it  is  direct 
Conclusion.  ^^^   conclusive.     If  the    Sabbath  command 

was  in  full  force  before  Moses,  the  passing  away  of  Moses'  law 
does  not  remove  it.  If  it  always  was  binding,  on  grounds  as 
general  as  the  human  race,  on  all  tribes  of  mankind,  the  disso- 
lution of  God's  special  covenant  with  the  family  of  Jacob  did 
not  repeal  it.  If  its  nature  is  moral  and  practical,  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  substance  for  the  types  does  not  supplant  it.  The 
reason  that  the  cermonial  laws  were  temporary  was  that  the 
necessity  for  them  was  temporary.  They  were  abrogated  be- 
cause they  were  no  longer  needed.  But  the  practical  need  for 
a  Sabbath  is  the  same  in  all  ages.  When  it  is  made  to  appear 
that  this  day  is  the  bulwark  of  practical  religion  in  the  world, 
that  its  proper  observance  everywhere  goes  hand  in  hand  with 
piety  and  the  true  worship  of  God  ;  that  where  there  is  no  Sab- 
bath there  is  no  Christianity,  it  becomes  an  impossible  supposi- 


380  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

tion  that  God  would  make  the  institution  temporary.  The 
necessity  for  the  Sabbath  has  not  •  ceased,  therefore  it  is  not 
abrogated.  In  its  nature,  as  well  as  its  necessity,  it  is  a  per- 
manent, moral  command.  All  such  laws  are  as  incapable  of 
change  as  the  God  in  whose  character-  they  are  founded.  Un- 
like mere  positive  or  ceremonial  ordinances,  the  authority  of 
which  ceases  as  soon  as  God  sees  fit  to  repeal  the  command  for 
them,  moral  precepts  can  never  be  repealed  ;  because  the  pur- 
pose to  repeal  them  would  imply  a  change  in  the  unchangeable, 
and  a  depravation  in  the  perfect  character  of  God. 

We   will   now   proceed,  in  the  second  place,  to   consider 

^  ,        the    passages    of   the    New  Testament  from 

JNew  Testament  does       1  •    i    .1  u  j.-  r  ^.i       o    t^l    ^i        i  i- 

not  Abrogate.  which  the  abrogation  01  the  babbath  obliga- 

tions has  been  argued,  together  with  some 
considerations  growing  out  of  them.  In  atempting  to  refute  the 
exposition  and  arguments  of  those  who  advocate  the  repeal  of 
those  obligations,  we  shall  not  pause  to  attribute  each  gloss 
which  we  reject  to  its  special  author,  or  load  our  page  with  cita- 
tations  of  learned  names.  It  may  be  remarked  once  for  all  in 
the  outset,  that  the  erroneous  expositions  of  Calvin  are  far  the 
least  objectionable,  and  at  the  same  time,  the  most  subtle  and 
acute ;  and  that  those  of  Neander  are  in  full  contrast  with  his 
in  both  these  respects. 

The  first  passage  is  that  contained,  with  some  variation,  in 

Matt,  xii  :    1-8;   Mark  ii  :   23-28;   Luke   vi  : 
Matt,  xn :  1-8 ;  Mark   .     ^        ^u  j  •    •         Ji  1 

ii:  23-28-  Luke  vi- 1-?    ^~S-      ^'^^  reader,  on  examining  these  places 
in  connection,  and  supplying  from  the  second 
or  third  evangelist  what  is  omitted  by  the  first,  will  find  that  our 
Lord  advances  five  ideas  distinguishable  from  each  other.     His 
hungry  and  wearied  disciples,  passing  with    Him  through  the 
fields  of  ripe  corn,  had  availed  themselves  of  the  permission  of 
Deut.  xxiii  :  25,  to  pluck,  rub  out,  and  eat  some  grains  of  wheat, 
as  a  slight  refreshment.     The   Pharisees  seize  the  occasion  to 
cavil  that  He  had   thus   permitted   them  to  break  the  Sabbath- 
law,   by  engaging    in    the    preparation  of  their  food  in  sacred 
time  ;  objecting  thus  against  the  trivial  task  of  rubbing  out,  and 
winnowing  from  the  chaff  a  few  heads  of  wheat  as  they  walked 
along.     Our  Saviour  defends   them   and  himself  by  saying,  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  necessity  created  by  their  hunger  justi- 
fied the  departure  from  the  letter  of  the  law,  as  did  David's 
necessity,  when,  fleeing  for  his  life,  he  employed  the  shew-bread 
(and  innocently)  to  relieve  his  hunger  ;  second,  that  the  example 
of  the  priests,  who  performed  necessary  manual  labour  without 
blame  about  the  temple  on  the  Sabbath,  justified  what  His  dis- 
ciples had  done  ;  third,  that  God  preferred  the  compliance  with 
the  spirit  of  His  law,  which  enjoins  humanity  and  mercy,  over  a 
mere  compliance    with    its    outward    rites ;  for,    in    the    fourth 
place  God's  design  in  instituting  the   Sabbath  had  been  purely 
a  humane  one,  seeing  He  had  intended  it,  not  as  a  burdensome 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  381 

ceremonial  to  gall  the  necks  of  men  to  no  benevolent  purpose,, 
but  as  a  means  of  promoting  the  true  welfare  of  the  human 
race ;  and  last,  that  He  Himself,  as  the  Messiah,  was  the  Divine 
and  Supreme  authority  in  maintaining  the  Sabbath  law,  as  well 
as  all  others — so  that  it  was  enough  for  Him  to  pronounce  that 
His  disciples  had  made  no  infraction  of  it. 

The  first  general  view  presented  hereupon  by  the  anti- 
Sabbatarians  is,  that  Christ  here,  for  the  first 
fin^s^J^Ss^bbath'"  time,  introduces  the  freer,  more  lenient  law 
of  the  new  dispensation,  by  His  Messianic 
authority,  as  a  substitute  for  the  stricter  Mosaic  law.  The 
simple  and  short  answer  is,  that  it  is  the  Sabbath  as  it  ought  to 
be  observed  by  Jews,  under  the  Mosaic  laws,  which  our  Saviour- 
is  here  expounding.  The  new  dispensation  had  not  yet  come ;. 
and  was  not  to  begin  till  Pentecost.  After  all  this  discussion,. 
Christ  complied  with  all  the  requisitions  of  the  Levitical  insti- 
tutions up  to  His  death.  If  then,  any  thing  is  relaxed,  it  is  the 
Mosaic  Sabbath,  as  Jews  should  keep  it,  which  is  the  subject  of 
the  alteration.  But  we  wish  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind,  as  a 
point  important  here  and  hereafter,  that  our  Saviour  does  not 
claim  any  relaxation  at  all  for  His  disciples.  The  whole  drift  of' 
•His  argument  is  to  show  that  when  the  Mosaic  law  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  properly  understood,  (as  Jews  should  practice  it,)  His 
disciples  have  not  broken  it  at  all.  They  have  complied  with  it ; 
and  need  no  lowering  of  its  sense  in  order  to  escape  its  con- 
demnation. Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  proceed  to  the  second 
erroneous  inference.  This  is,  that  our  Saviour  illustrates  and 
expounds  the  Sabbath  law,  by  two  cases  of  other  laws  merely 
ceremonial,  the  disposition  of  the  old  shew-bread  and  the  Sab- 
bath sacrifices.  Hence,  the  inference,  that  the  Sabbath  also  is 
but  a  ceremonial  law.  But  to  those  who  will  notice  how  entirely 
the  Jewish  Scriptures  neglect,  in  their  practical  recitals  and  dis- 
cussions of  religious  duties,  the  distinction  which  we  make 
between  the  "  moral"  and  the  "positive,"  this  inference  will  be 
seen  to  be  utterly  worthless.  The  Jewish  mind  never  paused  to 
express  the  distinction,  in  its  practical  views  of  duty.  See  how 
Moses  mixes,  in  Exodus,  prohibitions  against  idolatry,  or  hew- 
ing the  stones  of  which  the  altar  was  made  :  against  eating 
flesh  torn  of  beasts  in  the  field,  and  bearing  false  witness.  See 
how  Ezek.  (ch.  xviii,)  conjoins  eating  upon  the  mountains  and 
taking  usury  on  a  loan,  with  idolatry  and  oppression,  in  his  de- 
scription of  the  sins  of  his  cotemporaries.  But  again  :  It  has 
been  admitted  that  the  external  and  formal  details  of  Sabbath 
observance  may  be  of  only  positive  obligation,  while  the  obli- 
gation to  keep  religiously  a  stated  season  is  moral.  It  does  not, 
then,  at  all  imply  that  the  substantial  observance  of  such  a 
stated  day  is  not  of  moral  and  perpetual  obligation,  because 
any  of  those  details  concerning  the  labours  of  necessity  or 
mercy  which  are  wholly  compatible  with  such  observ^ance,  are 


382  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

illustrated  by  comparison  with  other  ceremonial  precepts.  It  is 
argued  again,  that  "  our  Saviour,  in  His  third  point,  implies  that 
Sabbath  observance  is  but  ceremonial,  while  the  duty  of  mercy 
is  of  moral  obligation,  when  He  indicates  that  if  the  two 
clash,  the  Sabbath  observance  is  to  give  way.  "  The  positive 
gives  way  to  the  moral."  The  force  of  this  is  entirely  removed 
by  recalling  the  fact  that  it  is  not  a  failure  of  Sabbath  observ- 
ance, which  He  excuses  by  the  argument  that  the  positive 
should  give  place  to  the  moral ;  but  it  is  an  incidental  labour  of 
necessity  wholly  compatible  with  Sabbath  observance.  There 
had  been  no  failure.  Nor  is  it  true  that  when  we  are  com- 
manded to  let  one  given  duty  give  place  to  the  higher  demands 
of  another,  the  former  is,  therefore,  only  positive,  while  the 
latter  is  moral.  There  is  a  natural,  moral,  and  perpetual  obli- 
gation to  worship  God ;  and  yet  it  might  be  our  duty  to  sus- 
pend any  acts  of  worship,  to  almost  any  number,  in  order  to 
meet  the  demands  of  urgent  cases  of  necessity  calling  for  our 
compassion.  The  wise  man  expresses  precisely  the  sense  of 
our  Saviour's  argument,  when  he  says:  "To  do  justice  and 
judgment  is  more  acceptable  to  the  Lord  than  sacrifice."  (Prov. 
xxi  :  3.)  And  the  meaning  is,  that  the  formal  acts  of  religious 
worship,  though  in  general  demanded  by  nature  and  reason,  are 
less  important  in  God's  eyes  than  the  direct  acts  which  express 
the  true  spirit  of  holiness  in  which  religion  consists.  "  Sacri- 
fice," both  here,  and  in  our  Saviour's  citation  from  Samuel, 
represents  the  whole  general  idea  of  outward  religious  worship. 
It  is  not  because  "  sacrifice"  is  merely  ceremonial,  that  it  is 
postponed  in  importance,  to  mercy  and  justice,  but  because  it 
is  external,  and  may  be  merely  formal.  Religious  worship, 
here  intended  by  the  more  special  term  "  sacrifice,"  is  surely 
not  a  duty  merely  ceremonial  and  positive  in  -its  obligations, 
though  external.  Our  Saviour,  then,  does  not  imply  that  the 
Sabbath  is  an  institution  merely  ceremonial,  by  comparing  it  to 
sacrifice. 

The  perverted  gloss  of  the  fourth  idea  :  "  The  Sabbath  is 
made  for  man,"  is  almost  too  shallow  to  need  exposure.  It  has 
been  used  as  though  it  sanctioned  the  notion,  that  man  was  not 
intended  to  be  cramped  by  the  Sabbath,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
it  was  intended  to  yield  to  his  convenience  and  gratification. 
But  since  the  object  of  the  Sabbath  is  here  stated  to  be  a 
humane  one,  namely,  the  promotion  of  man's  true  welfare,  it 
must  be  settled  what  that  true  welfare  is,  and  how  it  may  be 
best  promoted,  before  we  are  authorized  to  conclude  that  we 
may  do  what  we  please  with  the  holy-day.  If  it  should  appear 
that  man's  true  welfare  imperatively  demands  a  Sabbath-day, 
strictly  observed  and  fenced  in  with  Divine  authority,  the 
humanity  of  the  Divine  motive  in  giving  a  Sabbath  would  argue 
any  thing  else  than  the  license  inferred  from  it. 

The  concluding  words  of  the  passage,  in  Matthew,  have 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  383 

.     suggested    an    argument  which    is    at  least 

Christ  does  not  Remit.  1         -ui  /^    1    •  i  ^1 

more  plausible.  Lalvm  paraphrases  them 
thus :  "  The  Son  of  man,  agreeably  to  His  authority,  is  able  to 
relax  the  Sabbath-day  just  as  the  other  legal  ceremonies."  And 
just  before :  "  Here  He  saith  that  power  is  given  to  Him  to  re- 
lease His  people  from  the  necessity  of  observing  the  Sabbath." 
The  inference  is  obvious,  that  if  this  is  His  scope  in  these 
words,  then  the  Sabbath  must  be  admitted  by  us  to  be  only  a 
ceremonial  institution  ;  for  we  have  ourselves  argued  that  moral 
laws  are  founded  on  the  unchangeable  nature  of  God  Himself, 
and  will  n^ver  be  changed,  because  God  cannot  change.  But 
this  is  clearly  a  mistaken  exposition.  It  may  be  noted  that  the 
conjunction  which  is  rendered  by  Calvin  and  the  English  ver- 
sion, "  the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  even  (or  also)  of  the  Sabbath- 
day,"  is  unanimously  rejected  by  modern  editors  of  the  text. 
Calvin,  of  course,  makes  this  conjunction  regard  the  ceremonials 
just  mentioned  :  "  The  Son  of  Man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  also," 
(as  well  as  of  matters  of  shew-bread  and  sacrifice).  But  we  should 
almost  certainly  read  the  clause  without  the  conjunction  :  "  If 
ye  had  known  what  this  means,  '  I  prefer  mercy  rather  than 
sacrifice,'  ye  would  not  have  condemned  the  innocent.  For  the 
Son  of  Man  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath."  What  force  shall  we 
assign  to  the  illative  "  for,"  wholly  neglected  by  Calvin  ?  There 
is  no  reasonable  explanation  of  it,  but  that  which  makes  it 
introduce  the  ground  on  which  the  innocence  of  the  disciples 
is  asserted.  "  These  men,  blamed  by  you,  are  innocent ;  it  is 
enough  that  I  defend  them  :  for  I  am  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 
This  law  is  my  law.  Mine  is  the  authority  which  enacts  it,  and 
if  I  am  satisfied,  that  itself  is  innocence  in  my  subjects."  But 
this  is  comparatively  unimportant.  The  evident  reason  which 
shows  Calvin's  paraphrase  to  be  entirely  a  misconception,  is 
this :  As  we  have  said,  the  whole  drift  of  our  Saviour's  argu- 
ment is  not  to  excuse  His  disciples,  but  to  defend  them.  He 
does  not  claim  that  the  Sabbath  law,  as  enacted  for  Jews,  must 
needs  be  relaxed,  in  order  to  admit  the  conduct  of  the  dis- 
ciples ;  but  that  this  law  justified  their  conduct.  He  concludes 
His  defence  by  telling  their  accusers,  "you  have  condemned  the 
innocent."  Now,  to  represent  Him  as  shielding  them  by  assert- 
ing a  right  in  Himself  to  relax  the  Sabbath  law  for  them,  makes 
Him  adopt  in  the  end  a  ground  of  defence  contradictory  to  the 
former.  The  last  argument  would  stultify  all  the  previous  ones. 
And,  as  a  question  of  fact,  is  it  true,  that  Christ  did,  at  this 
time,  exercise  His  divine  authority  to  relax  any  Mosaic  institu- 
tion in  favour  of  His  disciples  ?  Is  it  not  notorious,  on  the 
contrary,  that  He  taught  them  to  give  an  exemplar}^  compliance 
in  every  respect,  until  the  time  was  fully  come  after  His  resur- 
rection ? 

But  to  conclude.     It  is  most  obvious  that,  whatever  is  our 
exposition  of  the  particular  parts,  our  Saviour's  drift  is  to  unfold 


384  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  true  nature  of  the  Mosaic  Sabbath,  as  then  obHgatory  on. 
Jews  still  obedient  to  the  ceremonial  law,  as  He  admitted  Him- 
self and  His  disciples  to  be  ;  and  not  the  nature  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath.  The  latter  was  not  to  be  introduced  until  many- 
months  after,  as  our  opponents  themselves  admit.  And  this 
short  view  is  a  sufficient  refutation  in  itself 

It  may  be  as  well  to  notice  here  a  supposed  difficulty 
attending  our  argument.  It  is  said  :  "  If  you 
stiu'Re^dred^'"'''"^''  ^^ny  that  Christ  promises  any  relaxation  of 
the  stringency  of  the  Levitical  Sabbath,  as  of 
a  ceremonial  yoke,  then  you  ought  in  consistency  to  exact  of 
Christians  now  as  punctilious  an  observance  as  was  demanded 
of  the  old  Jews,  in  every  respect.  You  should  refuse  to  make  a 
fire  in  your  dwellings  on  the  Sabbath.  You  should  seek  to  re- 
enact  the  terrible  law  of  Numb,  xv  :  35,  which  punished  a  wretch 
with  death  for  gathering  a  few  sticks." 

This  is  only  skillful  sophistry.  We  have  not  asserted  that 
all  the  details  of  the  Sabbath  laws,  in  the  books  of  Moses,  were 
of  perpetual  moral  obligation.  We  have  not  denied  that  some 
of  them  were  ceremonial.  The  two  instances  mentioned,  which 
are  the  only  plausible  ones  which  can  be  presented  against  us, 
are  not  taken  from  the  decalogue,  but  from  subsequent  parts 
of  the  ceremonial  books.  We  expressly  contrasted  the  Sabbath 
precept  as  it  stands  in  the  "  ten  words"  with  all  the  rest,  with 
reference  to  its  perpetual,  moral  nature.  The  precept  there 
contains  only  two  points — rest  from  secular  labour,  and  the 
sanctification  of  the  day,  which  means  in  our  view  its  appropri- 
ation to  sacred  services.  The  matter  which  is  of  perpetual 
moral  obligation  in  the  Sabbath  law,  is  only  this,  that  a  finite, 
sensuous,  and  social  being  like  man,  shall  have  some  periodical 
season  statedly  consecrated  to  religious  services,  (such  season 
as  God  shall  see  fit  to  appoint).  And  all  matters  of  detail  and 
form  which  do  not  clash  with  this  great  end,  are  matters  of 
mere  positive  enactment,  which  may  be  changed  or  repealed  by 
Him  who  enacted  them.  But  we  can  present  several  very  con- 
sistent and  sufficient  reasons  why  the  ceremonial  details,  added 
to  the  great  moral  law  of  the  decalogue  by  the  subsequent  and 
ritual  part  of  the  Levitical  legislation,  should  be  more  stringent, 
and  enforced  by  heavier  penalties,  than  among  us.  First :  the 
Sabbath  became  to  the  Israelite  not  only  a  religious  institution 
of  moral  obligation,  but  a  type.  It  took  rank  with  his  new- 
moon,  and  his  passover.  Of  this,  more  hereafter.  But  the  very 
nature  and  design  of  a  symbolical  ritual  demand  that  it  shall  be 
observed  with  technical  accuracy.  Next,  the  government  was 
a  theocracy,  and  no  line  whatever  separated  the  secular  and 
sacred  statutes  from  each  other.  Hence,  it  is  natural  that 
offences  should  deserve  very  different  penalties  under  such  a 
government,  and  especially  an  offence  aimed  so  especially 
against  the  Divine  Chief  Magistrate,  as  Sabbath  labour.  Third: 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  385 

The  Hebrews'  houses  had  no  hearths,  nor  chimneys,  except  for 
cooking ;  so  that  in  that  warm  chmate  a  prohibition  to  hght  fire  on 
the  Sabbath  is  exactly  equivalent  to  a  prohibition  to  cook  food 
on  the  holy-day.  Even  if  this  prohibition  were  a  part  of  the  deca- 
logue, it  would  be  a  ridiculous  sacrifice  of  its  spirit  to  its  letter, 
to  compel  us,  in  our  wintry  climate,  to  forego  the  fire  which  is 
hourly  necessary  to  health  and  comfort.  But  as  the  prohibition 
signifies  in  its  spirit,  we  freely  admit  that  with  us,  as  with  the 
Jews,  all  culinary  labours  should  be  intermitted,  except  such  as 
are  demanded  by  necessity  and  mercy,  or  by  the  different  nature 
of  a  part  of  the  food  on  which  civilized  nations  now  subsist. 
For  us  to  allow  ourselves  further  license  would  be  to  palter  with 
that  which  we  have  so  carefully  pointed  out  as  the  essential  and 
perpetual  substance  of  the  Sabbath  law — the  cessation  of  labour, 
and  the  appropriation  to  religious  pursuits  of  one  day  (not  one 
fragment  of  a  day)  in  seven.  When  the  Confession  of  Faith 
says  that  we  are  commanded  to  rest  "all  the  day"  from  our 
own  employments  and  amusements,  and  to  "  take  up  the  whole 
time"  in  religious  exercises,  it  only  assumes  that  "  a  day" 
means,  in  the  decalogue,  a  day. 

The  second  group  of  passages  which  are  used  against  our 
theory  of  Sabbath  obligation  are,  Rom.  xiv  ;  5-6 ;  Gal.  iv  : 
9-1 1  ;  Col.  ii  :  16,  17.  To  save  the  reader  trouble,  we  will  copy 
them. 

"One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another;  another 
esteemeth  every  day  alike.     Let  every  man 

ivfj^ij^'coit-ie^ry.  ^^  ^^^^>'  persuaded  in  his  own  mind.  He 
that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  unto  the 
Lord  ;  and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth 
not  regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord,  for  he  giveth 
God  thanks ;  and  he  that  eateth  not,  to  the  Lord  he  eateth  not, 
and  giveth  God  thanks." 

"  But  now,  after  that  ye  have  known  God,  or  rather  are 
known  of  God,  how  turn  ye  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly 
elements,  whereunto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage  ?  Ye 
observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years.  I  am  afraid 
of  you,  lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labour  in  vain." 

"  Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or 
in  respect  of  an  holy-day,  or  of  the  new-moon,  or  of  the  Sab- 
bath-days :  Which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come  ;  but  the 
body  is  of  Christ." 

The  facts  in  which  all  are  agreed,  which  explain  the 
Apostle's  meaning  in  these  passages,  are  these  :  After  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  new  dispensation,  the  Christians  converted  from 
among  the  Jews  had  generally  combined  the  practice  of  Judaism 
with  the  forms  of  Christianity.  They  observed  the  Lord's  day, 
baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper ;  but  they  also  continued  to 
keep  the  seventh  day,  the  passover,  and  circumcision.  At  first 
it  was  proposed  by  them  to  enforce  this  double  system  on  aU 
25* 


386  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Gentile  Christians  ;  but  this  project  was  rebuked  by  the  meeting 
of  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem,  recorded  in  Acts  xv.  A 
large  part,  however,  of  the  Jewish  Christians,  out  of  whom  ulti- 
mately grew  the  Ebionite  sect,  continued  to  observe  the  forms 
of  both  dispensations ;  and  restless  spirits  among  the  mixed 
churches  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts  planted  by  Paul,  con- 
tinued to  attempt  their  enforcement  on  Gentiles  also  ;  some  of 
them  conjoining  with  this  Ebionite  theory  the  graver  heresy  of 
a  justification  by  ritual  observances.  Thus,  at  this  day,  this 
spectacle  was  exhibited.  In  the  mixed  churches  of  Asia  Minor 
and  the  West,  some  brethren  went  to  the  synagogue  on  Satur- 
day, and  to  the  church-meeting  on  Sunday,  keeping  both  days 
religiously  ;  while  some  kept  only  Sunday.  Some  felt  bound  to 
keep  all  the  Jewish  festivals  and  fasts,  while  others  paid  them 
no  regard.  And  those  who  had  not  Christian  light  to  apprehend 
these  Jewish  observances  as  non-essentials,  found  their  con- 
sciences grievously  burdened  or  offended  by  the  diversity.  It 
was  to  quiet  this  trouble  that  the  apostle  wrote  these  passages. 
Thus  far  we  agree. 

We,  however,  further  assert,  that  by  the  beggarly  elements 
of  "days,"  "months,"  "times,"  "years,"  "holy-days,"  "  new- 
moons,"  "  Sabbath-days,"  the  apostle  means  Jewish  festivals, 
and  those  alone.  The  Christian's  festival,  Sunday,  is  not  here 
in  question  ;  because  about  the  observance  of  this  there  was  no 
dispute  nor  diversity  in  the  Christian  churches.  Jewish  and 
Gentile  Christians  alike  consented  universally  in  :ts  sanctifica- 
tion.  When  Paul  asserts  that  the  regarding  of  a  day,  or  the  not 
regarding  it,  is  a  non-essential,  like  the  eating  or  not  eating  of 
meats,  the  natural  and  fair  interpretation  is,  that  he  means  those 
days  which  were  in  debate,  and  no  others.  When  he  implies 
that  some  innocently  "regarded  every  day  alike,"  we  should 
understand,  every  one  of  those  days  which  were  subjects  of 
diversity — not  the  Christians'  Sunday,  about  which  there  was  no 
dispute. 

But  the  other  party  give  to  Paul's  words  a  far  more  sweep- 
ing sense.  They  suppose  him  to  assert  '  that 
Vifw-Repl'y! '''''''''  the  new  dispensation  has  detached  the  seivice 
of  God  from  all  connections  with  stated  sea- 
sons whatever  ;  so  that  in  its  view,  all  days.  Sabbath  or  Sun- 
day, Passover  or  Easter,  should  be  alike  to  the  Christian  spirit. 
He  who  ceased  to  observe  the  Jewish  days,  in  order  to  transfer 
his  sabbatical  observances,  his  stated  devotions  and  special 
religious  rest  to  the  Christian  days,  was  still  in  substance  a 
Judaizer.  He  was  retaining  the  Jewish  bondage  of  spirit  under 
a  new  form.  The  true  liberty  which  Paul  would  teach  was 
this  :  To  regard  no  day  whatever  as  more  related  to  the 
Christian  consciousness  than  any  other  day,  and  to  make  every 
<lay  a  rest  from  sin,  pervading  all  with  a  sacred  spirit  by  per- 
i   itning  all  its   labours  to  the  glory  of  God.     This  is  the  true^ 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  387 

thorough,  and  high  ground,  which  the  apostle  called  them  to 
occupy  with  him.     But  opposition   to  Judaism,  and    reverence 
for  Christ  in    His  resurrection   had   led  the   Christians  to  hold 
their   public   meetings    on   Sunday    instead   of  Saturday  ;  and 
some   little  allowance  of  set   days  (including  Easter  and  Whit- 
suntide)  had  been   granted    to  the   weakness  of  the  Christian 
life,  which,  in  the  common  average  of  Christians,  had  not  yet 
risen  to  that  level  which  would  enable  them,  like   Paul,  to  make 
every  day  equally  a  Lords'  day.     This  concession  had  been  pos- 
sibly established  with   Paul's  connivance,  certainly  very  early  in 
the  history  of  the   Church  ;  and,  on  the  whole,  was  a  very  con- 
venient   and    useful    human   appointment.'      See    this    view    in 
Neander,  Hist.,  vol.  i,  §  3,  vol.  2,  §  3  ;  and  Planting  and  Training 
vol.  i :  bk,  3,  ch.  v,  §  2.     The  chief  argument  by  which  he  sup- 
ports his  view  is   a   perversion    of  the   figurative  and   glowing 
language  found  in  the  few  and  not  very  perspicuous  writings  of 
the    Christians  immediately   next  to    the  apostles,  where  they 
speak  affectionately  of  the  Christian's  whole  life  as  belonging 
to  God  by  the  purchase  of  redemption,  and  of  the  duties  of 
every  day  as  an   oblation  to  His  honour.     The  thankful  spirit 
of  the  new  dispensation,    urges    Neander,    unlike    the    Jewish, 
felt  itself  constrained  by  gratitude  for  redemption  to  consecrate 
its  whole  life  to  God.       Whatever  the  Christian's  occupation, 
whether  secular  or  religious,  all  was  alike  done  to  the  glory  of 
God.     Hence,  all  was  consecrated;  every  day  was  a  holy  day, 
for  the    whole  life  was  holy;  every  Christian  was  a  perpetual 
priest.     Hence,  there  was  no  room   for  the   idea  of  a  Sabbath 
at  all.     Strange  that  the   learned  and   amiable  antiquary  should 
have  forgotten,  that  all  this  was  just  as  true  of  pious    Hebrews 
before,    as  of  Christians    after    Christ — of    Isaiah    as    of   Paul. 
Isaiah,   if  redeemed  at  all,  was  redeemed   by  the  same   blood 
with  Paul,  owed  substantially  the   same   debt  of  gratitude,  and 
would   feel,  as   a  true  saint,  the  same  self-consecration.     The 
spirit  of  the  precept,  "  Do  all  to  '  the  glory  of  God,"  actuates 
the  pious  Israelite  exactly  as  it  did  the  pious  Christian.     Let  the 
reader  compare   Deut.  vi  :  4,  5,  with   Matt,   xxii  :  37.     So,   this 
argument  proves   that  there  ought  to  be  no  room  for  a  sabbati- 
cal distinction  of  days  under  the  old  dispensation,  just  as  under 
the   new.     Unluckily,  the   explicit  language   of   the    books  of 
Moses  is  rather  damaging  to  the  validity  of  the  inference. 

Neander  concedes  that  Paul's  ground  was  too  high  for  many  ; 
and  hence  an  observance  of  some  days,  not  jure  divino,  was 
allowed  them.  On  this  I  remark,  first,  that  it  is  a  low  view  of 
the  apostle's  inspiration,  which  makes  him  set  up  a  standard  so 
impractical,  that  the  teaching  needed  amendment  by  a  human 
expedient ;  and  second,  that  this  admitted  fact  goes  far  to  prove 
that  a  Sabbath  is  grounded,  as  a  permanent  and  moral  precept, 
in  man's  wants  and  nature.  Third,  this  plea  leaves  the  Lord's 
day  in  the  attitude  of  a  piece  of  will-worship. 


388  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

In  our  remaining  discussion  of  the  passages  cited  from  the 

epistles,  we  may  confine  our  remarks  to  Col. 
Is    the     Sabbath    a--^/'^„-r?         •,  ,.  11-.1 

Type,  n  :  ID,    17.     ror  it  contams  all  the  apparent 

difficulties  for  the  Sabbatarian,  and  all  the 
supposed  arguments  for  his  opponent,  in  the  strongest  form. 
The  point  made  by  Calvin  upon  the  words,  "  Sabbath-days, 
.  .  .  .  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,  but  the  body  is  of 
Christ,"  is  far  the  most  plausible,  and  indeed  the  only  one  of 
serious  difificulty.  It  is  in  substance  this  :  That  if  it  be  ad- 
mitted that  the  Lord's  day  was  never  included  by  the  earlier 
Christians  in  the  term  Sabbata — and  the  apostle  is  here  condemn- 
ing the  Jewish  holy-days  only — still  the  fact  will  remain  that  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  was  a  shadow.  That  is,  it  was  a  typical,  and 
not  a  perpetual  moral  institution,  so  that  it  must  pass  away 
along  with  all  the  other  types,  after  the  substance  comes,  unless 
some  positive  New  Testament  precept  re-enact  it.  But  there  is 
no  such  precept.  To  this  we  answer,  that  the  Sabbath  was  to 
the  Jews  both  a  perpetual,  moral  institution,  and  a  type.  That 
it  was  the  former,  we  have  proved  in  the  first  general  branch  of 
our  discussion.  It  was  as  old  as  the  race  of  man,  was  given  to 
all  the  race,  was  given  upon  an  assigned  motive  of  universal 
application,  and  to  satisfy  a  necessity  common  to  the  whole  race, 
was  founded  on  man's  natural  relations  to  his  Maker,  was  ob- 
served before  the  typical  dispensation  came  among  all  tribes, 
was  re-enacted  in  the  decalogue  where  all  the  precepts  are  per- 
petual, and  was  enjoined  on  foreigners  as  well  as  Jews  in  the 
Holy  Land  :  while  from  all  types  foreigners  were  expressly 
excluded.  That  it  was  to  the  Jews  also  a  type,  we  admit; 
Like  the  new-moons,  it  was  marked  by  an  additional  number 
of  sacrifices.  It  was  to  the  Israelites  a  memorial  of  their  exo- 
dus from  Egypt,  and  their  covenant  of  obedience  to  God. 
Deut.  V  :  15,  Exod.  xxxi  :  13;  Ezek.  xx  :  12.  It  was  for  a 
time,  at  least,  a  foreshadowing  of  the  rest  of  Canaan,  Heb.  iv  : 
4-1 1.  It  was  to  them,  as  it  is  to  us,  a  shadow  of  the  rest  in 
heaven,  Heb.  iv  :  9.  Ca^lvin  adds,  (Institutes,  Bk.  2,  ch.  8, 
§  29)  that  its  most  important  typical  use  was  to  represent  the 
cessation  of  the  efforts  of  self-righteousness  in  us,  that  we  may 
repose  in  the  justifying  and  sanctifying  grace  of  Christ.  For 
this  his  proofs  seem  to  us  very  slender.  When  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians  says  that  Sabbaths,  along  with  holy  days  and 
new-moons,  are  a  shadow,  it  seems  to  us  much  the  most  simple 
explanation  to  say  that  it  is  the  sacrificial  aspect  of  those  days, 
or  (to  employ  other  words)  their  use  as  special  days  of  sacri- 
fice, in  which  they  together  constituted  a  shadow.  They  were 
a  shadow  in  this :  that  the  sacrifices,  which  constituted  so 
prominent  a  part  of  their  Levitical  observance,  pointed  to 
Christ  the  body.  This  is  exactly  accordant  with  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  Epistles, 

The  seventh  day  had  been,  then,  to  the  Jews,  both  a  moral 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  389 

institution  and  a  ritual  type.  In  its  latter  use,  the  coming  of 
Christ  had  of  course  abrogated  it.  In  its  former  use,  its  whole 
duties  and  obligations  had  lately  been  transferred  to  the  Lord's 
day.  So  that  the  seventh  day,  as  distinguished  from  Sunday, 
along  with  the  new-moons,  was  now  nothing  but  a  type,  and 
that  an  effete  one.  In  this  aspect,  the  apostle  might  well  argue 
that  its  observance  then  indicated  a  Judaizing  tendency. 

We  fortify  our  position  farther  by  re-asserting  that  the  fair 

exposition  of  all  these  passages  should  lead 
eluded  are  Jewih.  ^"^    ^s  to    understand    by    the  phrases,    "days," 

"times,"  "holy-days,"  only  those  days  or 
times  which  were  then  subjects  of  diversity  among  the  Chris- 
tians to  whom  the  apostle  was  writing.  When  he  implies  that 
some  innocently  "regarded  every  day  alike,"  we  ought  in  fair- 
ness to  understand  by  "  every  day,"  each  of  those  days  which 
were  then  in  dispute.  But  we  know  historically  that  there  was 
no  diversity  among  these  Christians  concerning  the  observance 
of  the  Lord's  day.  All  practised  it.  If  we  uncritically  persist 
in  taking  the  phrase  "  every  day  "  in  a  sense  absolutely  uni- 
versal, we  shall  place  the  teachings  and  usages  of  the  apostle 
in  a  self-contradictory  light.  We  make  him  tell  his  converts 
that  the  Lord's  day  may  be  regarded  as  just  like  any  other  day; 
when  we  know  that,  in  fact,  neither  the  apostle  nor  any  of  his 
converts  regarded  it  so.  They  all  observed  it  as  a  religious  fes- 
tival, and,  as  we  shall  show,  with  the  clear  sanction  of  inspired 
example.  Again  :  it  must  be  distinctly  remembered  that  the 
word  Sabbath  was  never  applied,  in  New  Testament  language, 
to  the  Lord's  day,  but  was  always  used  for  the  seventh  day,  and 
other  Jewish  festivals,  as  distinguised  from  the  Christian  Sun- 
day. We  have  the  authority  of  Suidas,  Theophylact  and 
Caesarius,  and  Levit.  xxiii  :  24,  that  the  "  Jews  called  any  of 
their  stated  religious  festivals  2'a/9/3'«ra.  We  might  then  argue, 
perhaps,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  seventh  day  is 
intended  in  this  place  of  Colossians  at  all ;  but  only  the  Jewish 
feasts.  But  we  waive  this,  as  too  near  to  special  pleading. 
With  far  more  confidence  we  argue,  that  since  all  parties  have 
claimed  the  parellelism  of  three  passages  in  Romans,  Galatians 
and  Colossians,  as  to  their  occasion  and  doctrine,  we  are  en- 
titled to  assume  that  the  passage  in  Colossians,  the  most 
explicit  of  the  three,  is  to  be  taken  as  explicative  of  the  other 
two.  And  we  assert  that,  according  to  well  known  usage  of 
the  word  la^iiaxa  at  that  time,  the  Sundays  were  definitely 
excluded  from  the  apostle's  assertion.  When  he  says  here, 
"  holy-days,"  new-moons,  and  Sabbath-days,"  he  explicitly 
■excludes  the  Lord's  days.  We  are  entitled  to  assume,  there- 
fore, that  they  are  excluded  when  he  says  in  the  parellel  pas- 
sage of  Romans,  "  every  day,"  and  in  Galatians,  "  days,  and 
months,  and  times,  and  years."  That  the  Lord's  days  were 
sacred  was  not  in  debate  ;  this  is  set  aside  as  a  matter  known  to 


390  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

all,  consented  unto  by  all.  It  is  the  Jewish  holy-days  from  the 
observance  of  which  the  Christian  conscience  is  exempted. 

L  t  us  recur  to  that  view  of  the  necessity  of  a  Sabbatical 
Without  Sabbath,  institution  in  some  form.  It  is  not  a  tempo- 
the  New  Dispensation  rary  or  ceremonial  need,  but  one  founded  on 
would  be  the  Worse,  man's  very  nature  and  relations  to  his  God. 
If  there  is  no  stated  sacred  day,  there  will  be  no  religion.  Now 
shall  we  so  interpret  the  apostle's  words  as  to  leave  the  New 
Testament  Church  no  Sabbath  at  all  in  any  shape  ?  After  the 
experience  of  all  ages  had  shown  that  a  Sabbath  rest  was  the 
natural  and  necessary  means  essential  to  religious  welfare,  was 
the  New  Testament  Church  stripped  more  bare,  left  more  poor 
than  all  preceding  dispensations  ?  Paradise  had  enjoyed  its 
Sabbath,  though  needing  it  less.  The  patriarchal  saints  enjoyed 
it.  Abraham  enjoyed  it.  Israel,  under  the  burdensome  tute- 
lage of  the  law,  enjoyed  it.  But  now  that  the  last,  the  fullest, 
the  most  gracious  and  blessed  dispensation  of  all  has  come, 
this  one  of  the  two  institutions  of  Eden  is  taken  away  !  We 
cannot  accept  such  an  exposition  of  the  apostle's  meaning. 

We  shall  now,  in  the  third  branch  of  our  discussion, 
attempt  to  show  the  ground  on  which  we 
tian  Sabbath! ''  ^^"'"  ^ssert  that  the  Sabbath,  "  from  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  was  changed  into  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  which  in  Scripture  is  called  the  Lord's  day,  and  is 
to  be  continued  to  the  end  of  the  world  as  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath." This  proof  is  chiefly  historical,  and  divides  itself  into 
two  branches ;  first,  that  drawn  from  the  inspired  history  of  the 
New  Testament ;  and  second,  that  found  in  the  authentic  but 
uninspired  testimony  of  primitive  Christians.  The  latter,  which 
might  have  been  thought  to  demand  a  place  in  our  review  of 
the  history  of  Sabbath  opinions  has  been  reserved  for  this  place, 
because  it  forms  an  interesting  part  of  our  ground  of  argu- 
ment. But  let  us  here  say,  once  for  all,  that  we  invoke  this 
patristic  testimony,  in  no  popish  or  prelatic  spirit  of  depend- 
ence on  it.  In  pur  view,  all  the  uninspired  church  testimony  in 
the  world,  however  venerable,  would  never  make  it  our  duty  to 
keep  Sunday  as  a  Sabbath.  We  use  these  fathers  simply  as 
historical  witnesses ;  and  their  evidence  derives  its  whole  value 
in  our  eyes  from  its  relevancy  to  this  point ;  whether  or  not  the 
apostles  left  a  custom  of  observing  Sunday,  instead  of  the  Sab- 
baths, established  by  their  example  in  the  Churches. 

Our  first,  or  preliminary  argument  for  the  observance  of 
^  ^         ^  Sunday  as  the  Sabbath,  is  that  implied  in  the 

Inferred  from  Abro-      .^^^ic"*.  r  i--       ji 

gation of  Seventh  Day.  ^^cond  Scripture  reference  subjoined  by  our 
Confession  to  the  sentence  we  have  just 
quoted  from  it.  If  we  have  been  successful  in  proving  that  the 
Sabbath  is  a  perpetual  institution,  the  evidence  will  appear  per- 
fect. The  perpetual  law  of  the  decalogue  has  commanded  all 
men,  in  all  time,  to   keep  a  Sabbath-day ;  and  "  till  heaven  and 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  39 1 

earth  pass,  one  jot  or  tittle  shall  not  pass  from  the  law  of  God 
till  all  be  fulfilled,"  The  Apostle,  in  Col.  ii  :  16,  17,  clearly  tells 
us  that  the  seventh  day  is  no  longer  our  Sabbath.  What  day, 
then,  is  it  ?  Some  day  must  have  been  substituted ;  and  what 
one  so  likely  to  be  the  true  substitue  as  the  Lord's  day  ?  The 
law  is  not  repealed  ;  it  cannot  be.  But  Paul  has  shown  that  it  is 
changed.  To  what  day  is  the  Sabbath  changed,  if  not  to  the 
first  ?  No  other  day  in  the  week  has  a  shadow  of  a  claim.  It 
must  be  this,  or  none  ;  but  it  cannot  be  none :  therefore  it  must 
be  this. 

The  other  main  argument  consists  in  the  fact  that  disci- 
ples, inspired  apostles,  and  their  Christian 
ent.'°^^  ^  "^^^^  '  associates,  did  observe  the  Lord's  day  as  a 
religious  festival.  And  this  fact  must  be 
viewed,  to  see  its  full  force,  in  connection  with  the  first  argument. 
When  we  find  them  at  once  beginning,  and  uniformly  continu- 
ing, the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day,  while  they  avow  that 
they  are  no  longer  bound  to  observe  the  seventh  day,  and  when 
we  couple  with  this  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  that  they,  like 
all  the  rest  of  the  world,  were  still  commanded  by  God  to  keep 
His  Sabbath,  we  see  that  the  inference  is  overwhelming,  that 
the  authority  by  which  they  observed  the  Lord's  day  was  from 
God,  although  they  did  not  say  so.  That  which  is  inferred 
from  Scripture,  "  by  good  and  necessary  consequence,"  is  valid; 
as  well  as  that  which  is  set  down  expressly  in  it,"  Examina- 
tion shows  us,  then,  that  the  disciples  commenced  the  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  day  by  social  worship  the  very  next  week 
after  the  resurrection.  From  John  xx  :  19,  we  learn  that  the 
very  day  of  the  resurrection,  at  evening,  the  disciples  were 
assembled  with  closed  doors,  with  the  exception  of  Thomas 
Didymus.  Can  we  doubt  that  they  had  met  for  worship  ?  In 
verse  26  we  learn :  "  And  after  eight  days  again  His  disciples 
were  within,  and  Thomas  with  them :  then  came  Jesus,  the 
doors  being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said,  '  Peace  be 
unto  you,'  "  None  will  doubt  but  that  this  was  also  a  meeting 
for  worship,  and  the  phraseology  implies  that  it  was  their  sec- 
ond meeting.  In  Jewish  language,  and  estimates  of  time,  the 
days  at  which  the  counts  begin  and  end  are  always  included  in 
the  counts ;  so  that  "  after  eight  days,"  here  indisputably  means 
just  a  full  week. 

By  consulting  Leviticus  xxiii  :  15,  16;  Deut.  xvi  :  9,  we 
find  that  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fixed  in 
FifstDTy.'^  ^""^  °"  this  way.  On  the  morrow  after  that  Sabbath 
(seventh  day)  which  was  included  within  the 
passover  week,  a  sheaf  of  the  earliest  ripe  corn  was  cut, 
brought  fresh  into  the  sanctuary,  and  presented  as  a  thank- 
offering  to  God.  The  day  of  this  ceremonial  was  always  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  or  our  Sunday,  which-  was,  to  the  Israel- 
ites, a  working  day.     From  this  day  they  were  to  count  seven 


392  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

weeks  complete,  and  the  fiftieth  day  was  Pentecost  day,  or  the 
feast  of  ingathering. 

Thus  we  reach  the  interesting  fact  that  the  day  selected  by 
God  for  the  pentecostal  outpouring,  and  the  inauguration  of 
the  Gospel  dispensation,  was  the  Lord's  day  —  a  significant  and 
splendid  testimony  to  the  importance  and  honour  it  was  in- 
tended to  have  in  the  Christian  world.  But  we  read  in  Acts  i  : 
14,  and  ii  :  I,  that  this  day  also  was  observed  by  the  disciples 
as  a  day  for  social  worship.  Thus  the  first  day  of  the  week 
received  a  second,  sacred  and  august  witness,  as  the  weekly 
solemnity  of  our  religion,  not  only  in  its  observance  by  the 
whole  body  of  the  new  Church,  but  by  the  baptism  of  fire,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  —  a  witness  only  second  to  that  of  Christ's  vic- 
tory over  death  and  hell.  Then  the  first  public  proclamation 
of  the  Gospel  under  the  new  dispensation  began ;  and  surely, 
when  every  step,  every  act  of  the  Divine  Providence  was  form- 
ative and  fundamental,  it  was  not  without  meaning  that  God 
selected  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  chosen  day. 

It  is  most  evident  from  the  New  Testament  history,  that 
the  Apostles  and  early  Church  uniformly 
D^y^atTrlli  ^"""^'^  celebrated  their  worship  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  The  hints  are  not  numerous  ;  but 
they  are  sufficiently  distinct.  The  next  clear  instance  is  in 
Acts  XX  :  7.  The  Apostle  was  now  returning  from  his  famous 
mission  to  Macedonia  and  Achaia,  in  full  prospect  of  captivity 
at  Jerusalem.  He  stops  at  the  little  church  at  Troas,  to  spend 
a  season  with  his  converts  there  :  "  And  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week  when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread, 
Paul  preached  unto  them,  (ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow,) 
and  continued  his  speech  until  midnight."  Here  we  have  a 
double  evidence  of  our  point.  First,  Paul  preached  unto  the 
disciples  on  this  day,  while  we  see  from  the  sixth  verse,  that  he 
was  a  whole  week  in  Troas,  including  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 
Why  does  he  wait  nearly  a  whole  week  to  give  these  his  more 
solemn  and  public  instructions,  unless  there  had  been  some 
usage  ?  Again  :  the  words,  "  when  the  disciples  came  together 
to  break  bread,"  clearly  indicate  that  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  their  habitual  day  for  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper.  So 
that  it  is  clear,  this  Church  of  Troas,  planted  and  trained  by 
Paul,  was  in  the  habit  of  consecrating  the  first  day  of  the  week 
to  public  worship ;  and  the  inspired  man  here  concurs  in  the 
habit.  Neander  does,  indeed,  suggest  an  evasion,  in  order  to 
substantiate  his  assertion  that  there  is  no  evidence  the  Lord's 
day  was  specially  sanctified  during  the  hfe-time  of  Paul.  He 
says  that  it  is  so  very  probable  this  day  was  selected  by  the 
brethren,  because  Paul  could  not  wait  any  longer,  (ready  to 
depart" on  the  morrow,)  that  no  safe  inference  can  be  drawn  for 
a  habitual  observance  of  the  day  by  them  or  Paul !  But  verse 
6,  tells  us  that  Paul  had  been  already  waiting  a  whole  week, 


2. 


OF  LECTURE'5  IN  THEOLOGY.  393 

and  might  have  had  choice  of  all  the  days  of  the  week  for  his 
meeting !     No  other  word  is  needed  to  explode  this  suggestion. 
The  next  clear  instance  is  in  i  Cor.  xvi  :  i,  2.     "  Now  con- 
cerning the   collection   for  the   saints ;    as   I 
I  Cor.  i6th  :  i  and    ^^^^  ^j^^^  ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^  Churches  of  Galatia, 

even  so  do  ye.  Upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store  as  God  hath 
prospered  him,  that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  come."  The 
points  here  indicated  are  two  —  that  the  weekly  oblation  of 
alms-giving  was  fixed  for  the  Lord's  day  —  and  that  this  rule 
was  enacted  for  the  Church  of  Corinth,  and  all  those  of  Galatia. 
The  inference  is  overwhelming,  that  the  Apostle  made  the 
usage  ultimately  uniform  in  all  the  churches  of  his  training. 
Neander  again  attempts  to  destroy  this  evidence  for  the  sancti- 
fication  of  Sunday,  by  saying  that  this  does  not  prove  there 
was  any  church  meeting,  or  public  w^orship  on  this  day.  The 
sum  of  alms  was,  most  probably,  simply  laid  aside  at  home,  in 
an  individual,  private  manner ;  and  this  is  made  more  probable 
by  the  Apostle's  ow^n  words :  "  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him 
in  store."  But  suppose  this  understanding  of  the  passage  is 
granted,  against  the  uniform  custom  and  tradition  of  the  earliest 
Christians,  which  testifies  with  one  voice,  that  the  weekly  alms- 
giving took  place  in  the  church  meeting;  Neander's  point  is 
not  yet  gained.  Still  this  alms-giving  was,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment meaning,  an  act  of  worship.  See  Phil,  iv  :  i8.  And  the 
early  tradition  unanimously  represents  the  first  Christians  as  so 
regarding  it.  Hence,  whether  this  alms-giving  were  in  public 
or  private,  we  have  here  an  indisputable  instance,  that  an  act 
of  worship  was  appointed,  by  apostolic  authority,  to  be  statedly 
performed  on  the  Lord's  day,  throughout  the  churches.  This 
is  evidence  enough  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  w^as  the  day 
already  known  and  selected  for  those  forms  of  worship  which 
were  rather  weekly  than  diurnal. 

Only  one  other   remains   to  be  cited  :  that  in   Rev.  i  :  lO. 
John  the  Apostle  introduces  the  visions  of 
da-^^nVata'^or'  ^^  ^''^  Patnios,  by  saying,   "  I  was   in  the  spirit  on 
^^^^    ^    °^'  the  Lord's  day."     This  is  the  only  instance 

of  the  application  of  this  title  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  in 
the  sacred  writings.  But  all  expositors,  ancient  and  modern, 
say  unhesitatingly  that  Sunday  is  designated  by  it.  On  this 
point  the  Church  has  had  but  one  understanding,  from  the  first 
century  down.  Tlje  Apostle  evidently  means  to  inform  us  that 
on  Sunday  he  was  engaged  in  a  spiritual  frame  of  mind  and 
feelings.  The  application  of  the  name,  Lord's  day,  to  Sunday, 
by  inspired  authority,  of  itself  contains  almost  enough  of  sig- 
nificance to  establish  its  claims  to  sanctification,  without  another 
text  or  example.  What  fair  sense  can  it  bear,  except  that  it  is 
a  day  consecrated  to  the  Lord?  Compare  Isaiah  Iviii  :  15, 
when  God  calls  the   Sabbath  "  my  holy-day."     If  the  Sabbath 


394  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

is  God's  day,  the  Lord's  day  should  mean  a  Christian  Sabbath. 
And  the  occupation  of  the  Apostle  this  day,  with  peculiar  spir- 
itual exercises,  gives  additional  probability  to  the  belief  that  it 
was  observed  by  the  New  Testament  Christians  as  a  day  of 
devotion. 

We  come  now  to  the  second  branch  of  the  historical  argument 
— the  testimony  of  the  early,  but  uninspired 
^Tradition  of  Lord's  Christian  writers.  The  earliest  of  all  cannot 
be  called  Christian.  In  the  celebrated  letter 
of  inquiry  written  by  Pliny  the  younger  to  the  Emperor  Trajan, 
on  the  treatment  of  persons  accused  of  Christianity,  this  pagan 
governor  says,  that  it  was  the  custom  of  these  Christians,  "  to^ 
meet,  stato  die,  before  light,  to  sing  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  God^ 
and  bind  each  other  in  an  oath,  (not  to  some  crime  but)  to  re- 
frain from  theft,  robbery  and  adultery,  not  to  break  faith,  and 
not  to  betray  trusts."  This  letter  was  written  a  few  years  after 
the  death  of  the  Apostle  John.  We  cannot  doubt  that  this 
stated  day,  discovered  by  Pliny  was  the  Lord's  day.  Ignatius, 
the  celebrated  martyr-bishop  of  Antioch,  says,  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Magnesians,  written  about  A.  D.  107  or  116,  that  this  is 
"  the  Lord's  day,  the  day,  the  day  consecrated  to  the  resurrec- 
tion, the  queen  and  chief  of  all  the  days." 

Justin  Martyr,  who  died  about  A.  D.  160,  says  that  the 
Christians  "  neither  celebrated  the  Jewish  festivals,  nor  observed 
their  Sabbaths,  nor  practised  circumcision."  (Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  p.  34).  In  another  place,  he  says,  that  "  they,  both 
those  who  lived  in  the  city  and  those  who  lived  in  the  country, 
were  all  accustomed  to  meet  on  the  day  which  is  denominated 
Sunday,  for  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  prayer,  exhortation 
and  communion.  The  assembly  met  on  Sunday,  because  this 
is  the  first  day  on  which  God,  having  changed  the  darkness  and 
the  elements,  created  the  world  ;  and  because  Jesus  our  Lord 
on  this  day  rose  from  the  dead." 

The  epistle  attributed  to  Barnabas,  though  not  written  by 
this  apostolic  man,  is  undoubtedly  of  early  origin.  This  un- 
known writer  introduces  the  Lord,  as  saying :  "  The  Sabbaths 
which  you  now  keep  are  not  acceptable  to  me  ;  but  those  w  hich 
I  have  made  when  resting  from  all  things,  I  shall  begin  the 
eighth  day,  that  is  the  beginning  of  the  other  world."  "  For 
which  cause,  we  (Christians)  observe  the  eighth  day  with  glad- 
ness, in  which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead,"  &c.     Eph.  ch.  xv. 

Tertullian,  at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  says  :  "  We 
celebrate  Sunday  as  a  joyful  day.  On  the  Lord's  day  we  think 
it  wrong  to  fast,  or  to  kneel  in  prayer." 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  cotemporary  with  Tertullian,  says  : 
"A  true  Christian,  according  to  the  commands  of  the  Gospel, 
observes  the  Lord's  day  by  casting  out  all  bad  thoughts,  and 
cherishing  all  goodness,  honouring  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord, 
which  took  place  on  that  day." 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  395: 

But,  perhaps  the  most  important,  because  the  most  learned, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  the  most  expHcit  witness,  is  Eusebius, 
the  celebrated  bishop  of  Gaesarea,  who  was  in  his  literary  prime 
about  the  era  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325.  In  his  Commen- 
tary on  the  xcii  Psalm,  which  the  reader  will  remember,  is  entitled 
"  a  psalm  or  song  for  the  Sabbath-day,"  he  says  :  "  The  Worb, 
(Christ),  by  the  new  covenant,  translated  and  transferred  the 
feast  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  morning  light,  and  gave  us  the  sym- 
bol of  true  rest,  the  saving  Lord's  day,  the  first  (day)  of  light, 
in  which  the  Saviour  gained  the  victory  over  death,  &c.  On 
this  day,  which  is  the  first  of  the  Light,  and  the  true  Sun,  we^ 
assemble  after  the  interval  of  six  days,  and  celebrate  holy  and 
spiritual  Sabbath ;  even  all  nations  redeemed  by  Him  through- 
out the  world  assemble,  and  do  those  things  according  to  the 
spiritual  law,  which  were  decreed  for  the  priests  to  do  on  the 
Sabbath.  All  things  which  it  was  duty  to  do  on  the  Sab- 
bath, these  we  have  transferred  to  the  Lord's  day  as  more 
appropriately  belonging  to  it,  because  it  has  the  precedence, 
and  is  first  in  rank,  and  more  honourable  than  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath. It  is  delivered  to  us  {-anadidozac)  that  we  should  meet 
together  on  this  day,  and  it  is  evidence  that  we  should  do  these 
things  announced  in  the  psalm." 

The  first  Church  council  which  formally  enjoined  cessation 
of  labour  upon  the  Lord's  day  was  the  provincial  synod  of 
Laodicea,  held  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  twenty-ninth  canon  of  this  body  commanded  that  none  but 
necessar)^  secular  labours  should  be  carried  on  upon  Sunday. 
But  Constantine  the  Great,  when  he  adopted  the  Christian  as 
the  religion  of  the  State,  had  already  enacted  that  all  the 
labours  of  courts  of  justice,  civil  and  military  functionaries,  and 
handicraft  trades,  should  be  suspended  on  the  Lord's  day,  and 
that  it  should  be  devoted  to  prayer  and  public  worship.  This 
suspension  of  labour  was  not,  however,  extended  to  agricultur- 
ists, because  it  was  supposed  they  must  needs  avail  themselves 
of  the  propitious  season  to  gather  their  harvests,  or  sow  their 
seed,  without  regard  to  sacred  days.  But  the  Emperor  Leo 
(who  came  to  the  throne  A.  D.  457)  ultimately  extended  the 
law  to  all  classes  of  persons. 

The  Christians  did  not  for  several  hundred  years  apply  the 

word  Sabbath  to  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
clauire'''^^''"  Nomen-  ^^^  always  used  it  distinctly  to  indicate  the 

Jewish  seventh  day.  Their  own  sacred  day, 
the  first  day,  was  called  by  them  the  Lord's  day  {filiz(>fJ-  '/JJinaxfl), 
as  they  said,  because  it  was  dedicated  to  the  honour  of  Christ, 
and  because  it  was  the  head,  crown,  and  chief  of  all  the  days. 
They  also  called  it  Sundav  [Dies  solis,  a  phrase  frequently 
found  among  the  Latin  Christians),  because,  according  to  their 
interpretation  of  Gen.  i  :  3,  the  sun  was  created  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week  ;  but  still  more,  because  on   that   day  the  brighter 


396  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Sun  of  Righteousness  arose  from  the  dead,  with  heahng  in  His 
beams.  The  objection  often  made  by  persons  over-puritanical, 
that  it  smacks  of  Pagan  or  Scandinavian  profanity  to  say  Sun- 
day, because  the  word  indicates  a  heathenish  consecration  of 
the  day  to  the  sun,  is  therefore  more  Quakerish  than  sensible. 
We  are  willing  to  confess  that  we  always  loved  the  good  old 
name  Sunday — name  worthy  of  that  day  which  should  ever 
seem  the  brightest  in  the  Christian's  conceptions,  of  all  the 
week,  when  the  glorious  works  of  the  natural  creation  first 
began  to  display  the  honours  of  the  great  Creator,  and  when 
that  new  and  more  divine  creation  of  redeeming  grace  was  per- 
fected by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  But,  in  the  appli- 
cation of  the  phrase  "  Christian  Sabbath"  to  the  first  day,  the 
Westminster  Assembly  had  a  definite  and  truthful  design, 
although  the  early  Church  had  not  given  it  this  name.  It  was 
their  intention  to  express  thus  that  vital  head  of  their  theory ; 
that  the  Old  Testament  institute  called  Sabbath,  which  was 
coeval  with  man,  and  was  destined  to  coexist  with  all  dispen- 
sations, was  not  abrogated ;  that  it  still  existed  substantially, 
and  that  Christians  were  now  to  find  it  in  the  Lord's  day.  To 
the  Christian  the  Lord's  day  is  the  Sabbath.  (Such  is  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  name)  possessing  the  Divine  authority,  and 
demanding  in  the  main  the  sanctification  which  was  formerly 
attached  to  the  seventh  day. 

Another  head  of  the  Sabbath  argument  remains :  from  its 

.    ,  ^  practical  necessity,  as  a  means  of  securing 

4.  Practical  Argument.  ,  11  -111.11- 

^  man  s  corporeal  and  mental  health,  his  mo- 

rality, his  temporal  success  in  life,  and  his  religious  interests. 
This  is  the  department  of  the  discussion  which  has  been  more 
particularly  unfolded  in  the  "  Permanent  Sabbath  Documents," 
published  under  the  auspices  of  Dr.  Justin  Edwards,  and  more 
recently  in  the  remarkable  essays  on  the  Sabbath,  produced  by 
workingmen  in  Great  Britain.  It  is  now  by  so  much  the  best 
understood  part  of  the  Sabbath  discussion  that  we  should  not 
have  introduced  it  at  all  except  that  it  was  one  of  the  stones  in 
the  arch  of  our  attempted  demonstration,  that  there  is  a  natural 
necessity  in  man  for  a  Sabbath  rest.  The  Creator,  who  appoint- 
ed the  Sabbath,  formed  man's  frame  ;  and  all  intelligent  obser- 
vers are  now  agreed  that  the  latter  was  adapted  to  the  former. 
Either  body  or  mind  can  do  more  work  by  resting  one  day  in 
seven,  than  by  labouring  all  the  seven  days.  And  neither  mind 
nor  body  can  enjoy  health  and  continued  activity  without  its 
appointed  rest.  Even  the  structure  of  the  brutes  exhibits  the 
same  law.  Again  :  As  a  moral  and  social  institution,  a  weekly 
rest  is  invaluable.  It  is  a  quiet  domestic  reunion  for  the  bust- 
ling sons  of  toil.  It  ensures  the  necessary  vacation  in  those 
earthly  and  turbulent  anxieties  and  affections,  which  would 
otherwise  become  inordinate  and  morbid.  It  brings  around  a 
season  of  periodical   neatness    and  decency,  when    the  soil  of 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  39/ 

weekly  labour  is  laid  aside,  and  men  meet  each  other  amidst 
the  decencies  of  the  sanctuary,  and  renew  their  social  affec- 
tions. But  above  all,  a  Sabbath  is  necessary  for  man's  moral 
and  rlligious  interests.  Even  in  Paradise,  and  in  man's  state  of 
innocence,  it  was  true  that  a  stated  season,  resolutely  appropri- 
ated to  religious  exercises,  was  necessary  to  his  welfare  as  a, 
religious  being.  A  creature  subject  to  the  law  of  habit,  of 
finite  faculties,  and  required  by  the  conditions  of  his  existence 
to  distribute  his  attention  and  labours  between  things  secular 
and  things  sacred,  cannot  successfully  accomplish  this  destiny- 
without  a  regular  distribution  of  his  time  between  the  two  great 
departments.  This  is  literally  a  physical  necessity.  And  when 
we  add  the  consideration  that  man  is  now  a  being  of  depraved, 
earthly  affections,  prone  to  avert  his  eyes  from  heaven  to  the 
earth,  the  necessity  is  still  more  obvious.  Man  does  nothing 
regularly  for  which  he  has  not  a  regular  time.  The  absolute 
necessity  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  season  for  the  public  preaching- 
of  religion  and  morality,  as  a  leisure  time  for  the  domestic  reli- 
gious instruction  of  the  young,  as  a  time  for  private  self-exami- 
nation and  devotion,  is  most  clear  to  all  who  admit  the  import- 
ance of  these  duties.  And  now,  it  is  most  obvious  to  practical 
good  sense,  that  if  such  a  stated  season  is  necessary,  then  it  is 
proper  that  it  should  be  ordained  and  marked  off  by  Divine 
authority,  and  not  by  a  sort  of  convention  on  man's  part.  To 
neglect  the  stated  observance  of  a  religious  rest,  is  to  neglect 
religion.  And  when  there  is  so  much  of  mundane  and  carnal 
affection — so  much  of  craving,  eager  worldly  bustle — to  entice 
us  to  an  infringement  of  this  sacred  rest,  it  is  certain  that  it  will 
be  neglected,  unless  it  be  defended  by  the  highest  sanction  of 
God's  own  authority.  Nay,  do  we  not  see  that  this  sanction 
is  insufficient,  even  among  some  who  admit  its  validity  ? 
Again :  If  such  a  stated  rest  is  necessary,  then  it  is  also  neces- 
sary that  its  metes  and  bounds  be  defined  by  the  same  authority 
which  enjoins  the  rest  itself.  Otherwise,  the  license  which  men 
will  allow  themselves  in  interpreting  the  duration  of  the  season, 
and  in  deciding  how  much  constitutes  the  observance  of  it,  or 
how  little,  will  effectually  abrogate  the  rest  itself  If,  then,  the 
necessities  of  human  nature  require  a  Sabbath,  it  does  not 
appear  how  God  could  ordain  less  than  we  suppose  He  has 
done,  in  requiring  the  whole  of  a  definite  length  of  time  to  be 
faithfully  devoted  to  religious  exercises,  and  in  making  this 
command  explicit  and  absolute. 


LECTURE  XXXJII. 

M 

SECOND  TABLE,     (sth  and  6th  COMMANDMENTS.) 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  the  general  scope  of  the  5th  Commandment? 

2.  Show  that,   under  the  names   "  Father  and  Mother,"  all  superiors  in  family, 
Church  and  State  are  included. 

3.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  promise  attached  ? 

4.  What  is  required  and  forbidden  in  the  6th  Commandment ; 

5.  Does  it  prohibit  the  slaying  of  animals  for  food  ? 

6.  Does  it  prohibit  defensive  war,  or  forcible  self-defence  by  persons? 

7.  Are  capital  punishments  righteous  ? 

8.  What  is  the  moral  character  of  dueling? 

Shorter  Catechism,  Qu.  63-69.  Larger  Cat.,  Qu.  123-136.  Calvin's  Inst., 
bk.  ii,  ch.  8,  §  35-40.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  16,  17.  Green's  Lect.  46-50. 
Ridgeley's  Divinity,  Qu.  123-136.  Hopkins  on  the  Ten  Commandments. 
Hodge's  Theology,  Vol.  iii,  ch.  19,  \  9,  10.  "American  Peace  Society" 
Publications. 

A^T'E  enter  now  upon  the  consideration  of  the  Second  Table. 

The  immediate  objects  of  the  duties  of  this  table   are  our 

fellow-men.      But  still,  the   breach   of   one   of   them  is   a  sin 

against  God  also,  because  it  is  He  who  has  enjoined  them,  and 

has  placed  us  in  those  relations  in  which  the  duties  arise. 

As  the  first  table  began  with  that  which  is  fundamental  to 

^  ,    ^.^,     all   religion,   the    pointing    out   of    the   only 
I.  Scope  of  the  Fifth  rw.-      ^       r         i-    •  ■  .1 

Commandment.     Pa-    proper  Object   of    religious   service;    so   the 

rents  represent  all  Su-    second  table  begins  with  that  duty  which  is 
P^"*""^*  fundamental  to  all  social  duties,  and  the  most 

important  of  all ;  subjection  to  domestic  authority.  I  must 
here  again  remind  you  of  the  rule  of  interpretation  laid  down 
at  the  outset,  that  a  whole  class  of  duties  is  enjoined,  and  of 
sins  forbidden,  under  one  prominent  specimen.  So,  we  under- 
stand that  here,  under  the  example  of  filial  duties,  all  the  rela- 
tive duties  between  superiors  and  inferiors,  in  the  Family,  the 
Church,  and  the  Commonwealth,  are  included.  Not  only  the 
duties  of  children  to  parents,  but  of  servants  to  masters,  pupils 
to  teachers,  and  people  to  rulers  in  Church  and  State,  are  here 
implied.  If  these,  most  important  classes  of  social  duties  are 
not  intended  to  be  included  in  this  precept,  then  they  are 
nowhere  in  the  decalogue  :  for  there  is  no  other  precept  where 
they  can  be  fairly  embraced.  Can  we  believe  that  the  sum- 
mary so  omits  what  the  subsequent  Scriptures  so  often  enforce 
in  detail?  The  including  of  all  these  duties  under  the  fifth 
commandment  will  seem  far  more  natural,  if  we  remember  that 
the  original  forms  of  government  in  the  old  world  were  all 
patriarchal ;  in  which  the  father  was  the  head,  priest,  and 
prince  of  all  his  descendants  and  servants.  The  family  was  no 
doubt  the  germ  out  of  which  civil  institutions  and  the  organ- 
ized Church  grew.  The  Jewish  nation  was  just  now  passing, 
398 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  399 

in  part, out  of  this  patriarchal  form ;  and  many  of  its  features  were 
retained  in  the  Mosaic  government.  How  natural  then,  to  an 
ancient  Israelite,  to  represent  the  general  idea  of  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  superiors  under  the  term  Parents  ?  Servants  (who 
were  usually  slaves)  were  on  much  the  same  footing  in  ancient 
society  with  children.  Kings  were  called  Fathers,  i  Sam. 
xxiv  :  II.  Prophets  were  generally  addressed  as  Fathers,  by 
the  young  men  entrusted  to  their  religious  instruction,  who,  in 
turn,  were  called  "sons  of  the  prophets,"  2  Kings  ii  :  3  and  12. 
Many  duties  are  of  a  reciprocal  nature.  Obligation  on 
one  side  implies  a  correlative  obligation  on 

ci?ocF''""'  ^'^  ^^'  ^^^^  ^^^^^^-  ^^^^^  ^^^^  duties  of  inferiors  im- 
ply the  reciprocal  duties  of  superiors.  Un- 
der this  commandment  then,  are  included  the  duties  of  parents 
towards  their  children,  masters  towards  servants,  rulers  towards 
subjects,  church -teachers  towards  their  charges.  Thus,  we  find 
that  St.  Paul,  in  the  former  part  of  the  sixth  chapter  of  Ephes- 
ians,  (which  may  fairly  be  taken  as  his  exposition  of  the  fifth 
commandment),  begins  with  the  duties  of  children  towards 
parents,  but  follows  it  up  immediately  with  the  duties  of 
parents  towards  their  children ;  and  after  instructing  servants, 
proceeds  immediately  to  instruct  their  masters.  We  feel  there- 
fore fully  justified  in  giving  the  fifth  commandment  the  gen- 
eral scope  assigned  to  it.  in  the  Catechism.  "The  general  scope 
of  the  fifth  commandment  is  the  performance  of  those  duties 
which  we  mutually  owe  in  our  several  relations,  as  superiors, 
inferiors,  or  equals." 

2.  It  is  under  this  head  of  the  decalogue,  that  the  impor- 
tant Scripture  doctrine  of  the  civil  magistrate,  and  duty  of  citi- 
zens, should  fall,  which  is  the  subject  of  the  23d  chapter  of  our 
Confession.  But  this  is  a  subject  of  so  much  importance,  that 
I  reserve  it  for  separate  discussion  in  the  Senior  course.  The 
details  of  the  other  duties  of  inferiors  and  superiors  may  be 
seen  so  fully  stated  in  your  catechisms,  that  it  would  be  mere 
repetition  to  recite  them  here. 

The  fifth  commandment  is  peculiar  in  closing  with  a  prom- 
ise to  encourage  to  its  observance  :  "  That 
Pr^mis^'^'^^"*  °^  ^^^  ^^y  ^^ys  ""la-y  be  long  upon  the  land  which 
the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee."  The  first 
recipient  of  the  promise  was  the  Nation ;  and  it  may  be  na- 
tional permanency  which  is  pledged.  But  the  Apostle  applies  it 
(Eph.  vi  :  2),  to  Christian  children,  after  Israel  was  cast  out. 
This  authorizes  us  to  give  it  a  personal  application.  As  a  long 
life  spent  in  adversity  would  be  no  boon,  this  promise  is  obvi- 
ously understood  as  one  of  "  long  life  and  prosperity."  We 
understand  it  to  give  us  that  encouragement  which  is  also  pre- 
sented by  the  established  connection  of  causes  and  effects  in 
God's  providence,  where  the  faithful  and  general  performance 
of  the  duties  of  inferiors  and  superiors,  and  especially  of  pa- 


400  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

rents  and  children,  ensures,  as  far  as  any  earthly  means  can, 
general  health,  peace,  prosperity  and  temporal  welfare  ;  whereas 
the  anarchical  neglect  of  those  duties,  and  especially  of  the 
parental  and  filial,  plunges  every  society  into  violence,  disease, 
disorder,  misery,  and  premature  death.  We  do  not  understand 
God's  promise  in  this  commandment  as  absolute  and  universal. 
To  claim  this  would  be  to  claim  that  God  should  work  for  duti- 
ful sons  a  continual  miracle,  in  suspending  the  mutual  influen- 
ces of  men  on  each  other's  welfare,  by  which  the  virtuous, 
especially  when  few,  share  the  calamities  procured  by  the  more 
prevalent  crimes  of  the  wicked.  The  first  promise  is  given  to 
a  society  (as  to  Israel)  in  the  aggregate.  The  general  perform- 
ance of  the  duty  is  necessary  to  ensure  the  happy  result.  If 
there  is  a  general  neglect  of  the  duties,  as  in  our  day,  it  must 
result  in  calamities ;  and  some  of  the  most  dutiful  of  our  sons 
may  fall,  as  many  a  virtuous  Confederate  soldier  fell,  in  the 
prime  of  his  days,  in  the  general  disorder. 

The  sixth  commandment  is  in  these  terse  words :  "Thou 
shalt  not  kill."  Its  obvious  scope  is  the 
ColnmtXenf  ''''^'  preservation  of  life.  It  forbids  all  that  un- 
righteously  assails  our  own  and  others'  lives, 
and  enjoins  all  suitable  means  for  the  preservation  of  both. 
This  command  is  based  upon  these  two  great  truths  :  that  life 
is  God's  gift,  and  therefore  to  be  abridged  or  taken  away  only  at 
His  command ;  and  that  life  is  of  supreme  value  to  every  man. 
In  robbing  a  man  of  life,  you  would  virtually  rob  him  of  every 
valuable  thing  which  life  includes.  It  is  committing  against 
a  fellow-man  every  species  of  robbery  in  one.  The  Scriptures 
also  ground  the  prohibition  of  taking  man's  life  on  his  likeness 
to  God.  Gen.  ix  :  6.  "  For  in  the  image  of  God  made  He 
man.  James  iii  :  9 ;  also  founds  the  lesser  sin  of  slander  and 
reviling  partly  on  the  same  fact.  Man's  rational,  moral  and 
immortal  nature  is  the  chief  glory  of  his  being;  it  reflects  the 
glory  of  God's.  Hence,  to  invade  this  being  is  at  once  the 
most  enormous  wrong  against  the  creature,  and  an  act  of 
impiety  against  God. 

We  have  here  then,  another  instance  of  the  profoundly 
logical  arrangement  which  infinite  wisdom  has  given  to  the 
decalogue.  The  second  table,  after  fixing  those  relative  duties 
out  of  which  society  itself  emerges,  then  proceeds  to  protect, 
first,  that  value  which  is  transcendent  with  ever>^  man — his  tem- 
poral existence.  It  then  secures  that  which  is  next  in  order 
of  essential  importance — man's  chastity,  including  the  purity 
of  the  marital  relation,  the  foundation  of  the  domestic ;  and 
postpones  to  the  last  those  duties  of  commutative  righteous- 
ness, and  of  truth,  which  are  the  outer  bonds  of  society. 

But  when  God  says,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  what  are  the 

.   .     ,  , ..  things    whose    slaying     is    thus     inhibited? 

5.  Animal  Life  may  t>     .  n     i  r  r        4.-        •      n^     ■  4.- 

be  Taken  There  IS  a  small  class  oi  tanatics  ni  Christian 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  401 

lands,  larger  in  some  Pagan  ones,  who  answer,  that  we  may  kill 
nothing  that  has  animal  life.  Hence  the  use  of  the  flesh  of  quad- 
rupeds, birds,  and  fishes,  for  food,  is  of  course  inhibited  by  them. 
This  party  is  known  in  America  as  Grahamites.  Their  tendency 
is  infidel;  for  the  Bible  speaks  too  plainly  on  this  subject  to  be 
questioned  by  any  devout  believer.  We  read  that  God  gave  to 
Adam  and  his  family  only  the  vegetable  world  for  food,  assigning 
him  the  use  of  the  animals  as  his  servants.  (Hence,  the  skins  in 
which  God  clothed  Adam  and  Eve  after  their  fall,  must  have  come 
either  from  the  religious  sacrifices  which  He  taught  them  to  offer, 
the  more  probable  surmise  ;  or  from  beasts  which  died  by  the  vio- 
lence of  their  own  kind,  or  by  disease).  But  after  the  flood, 
the  fruitfulness  of  the  earth  having  been  probably  impaired  for 
all  subsequent  time,  God  expressly  gave  Noah  and  his  family 
the  privilege  of  eating  the  flesh  of  animals,  only  reserving  the 
blood,  with  which  they  should  "  make  atonement  for  their  souls 
upon  the  altar."  This  permission  is  doubtless  now  valid.  It 
was  expressly  continued  to  the  Hebrews,  in  the  distinction  of 
the  clean  beasts.  It  is  equally  certain  that  it  was  not  abro- 
gated after  Christ  came ;  for  we  find  Him,  even  after  His  resur- 
rection (Luke  xxiv  :  43  ;  Jno.  xxi  :  9),  eating  the  flesh  of  fishes, 
and  encouraging  His  followers  to  do  so.  See  also  Rom.  xiv  :  3, 
and  I  Cor.  x  :  25. 

Reason  approves  this.  The  sanctity  of  human  life  is 
placed,  where  inspiration  places  it  (in  Gen.  ix  :  6),  in  man's 
rational  responsibility  and  immortality.  The  life  of  the  beast, 
"  whose  spirit  goeth  downward,"  is  no  such  inviolable  boon  to 
him.  And  while  we  admit  that  the  duty  of  benevolence 
extends  to  the  brutes,  as  does  God's  benevolence,  we  argue 
that  the  employment  of  animals  for  food  has,  on.  the  whole, 
greatly  promoted  their  animal  well-being.  For  man  thus  has  a 
sufficient  motive  for  their  careful  nurture,  whereas  otherwise  he 
would  regard  them  as  nuisances. 

Still  another,  and  a  larger  class  of  fanatics,  hold  that  there 
c    n    %  1    r.    •  u     are  no  circumstances  under  which  human  life 

6.      Capital      Punish-  ^  r    ^^        ^  /^1      •        •  i-l 

ments  and  Defensive  Can  be  taken  lawfully  by  man.  Llaimmg  tne 
War,  O.C.,  Not  Forbid-  admission  which  we  have  made,  that  life  is  to 
^^^""  man  God's   loan,   they  urge  that  no  creature 

can  -under  any  circumstances  assume  authority  to  take  it  away 
from  his  fellow  man.  Hence  it  must  follow  that  personal  self- 
defence  against  unrighteous  aggression,  that  the  defensive  wars 
of  commonwealths,  and  the  infliction  of  capital  punishments 
upon  the  most  enormous  criminals  even,  are  all  unlawful. 
Here  is  the  theory  of  the  "non-resistance"  and  the  "peace 
parties." 

I  may  make  the  same  remark  of  these,  that  they  are  virtu- 
Arguments— Macris-    ally   infidel   parties.     If  the   authority  of  the 
trate ''slays  by  Dele-    Scriptures   is   admitted,  their  conclusions  are 
gated  Authority.  obviously   false.     They  are   obviously  illogi- 

26* 


402  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

cal.  It  is  true  that  human  hfe  is  God's  loan  to  His  creatures. 
No  one  may  take  it  away  without  the  authority  of  the  Divine 
Giver.  It  is  therefore  simply  a  question  of  revealed  testimony, 
whether  God  has,  in  any  cases,  deputized  to  man,  or  to  society, 
the  authority  to  take  life.  If  He  has,  then  it  is  God's  author- 
ity which,  in  the  appropriate  case,  takes  away  the  boon ;  and 
the  human  agent  is  merely  God's  executioner.  It  is,  then, 
simply  a  question  of  fact  as  to  the  Scriptural  teachings. 

It  life  is  thus  sacred,  as  God's  boon,  and  is  man's  one  pos- 

r^  ,r-^  r  r  scsslon  of  transccndeut    value,  then  to   take 

Self-JJcfence     Law-     •,  ^.^        j.     ■    ■[  .   ■ 

f^^l  it  away  without  right  is  an  enormous  outrage. 

Suppose  this  outrage  is  obviously  about  to 
be  perpetrated  by  an  aggressor  upon  an  innocent  person.  Sup- 
pose, also,  that  the  protection  of  the  law  is  absent,  and  can- 
not be  successfully  invoked?  What  shall  the  defendant  do? 
Is  it  his  duty  to  be  passive  and  yield  up  his  life  ;  or  to  take  the 
defensive,  and  protect  it  by  force,  even  to  the  extent  of  taking 
the  assailant's  life  if  necessary  ?  Human  laws  and  conscience 
concur  in  the  latter  answer.  Remember  that  the  aggressor 
unrighteously  creates  the  dilemma,  making  it  necessary  that 
at  least  one  life  must  go.  Whose  had  best  go  ?  Obviously  the 
life  of  the  criminal,  rather  than  that  of  the  innocent  man. 
Again:  If  law  subsequently  has  its  just  course,  the  murderer, 
after  his  guilty  success,  will  have  to  die  for  it.  The  case  is  then 
still  stronger  :  that  the  passive  theory  sacrifices  two  lives,  one 
innocent  ;  whereas  the  theory  of  self-defence  saves  the  righteous 
life,  and  only  sacrifices  the  guilty  one.  Our  conclusion  is  also 
confirmed  by  the  existence  in  us  of  the  emotion  of  lawful 
resentment,  the  righteousness  of  which,  within  its  proper 
bounds,  the.  Saviour  allows  (Matt,  v  :  22  ;  Eph.  iv  :  26).  For 
if  there  is  no  forcible  self-defence  against  wrong,  there  is  no 
reasonable  scope  for  this  emotion. 

The  Scriptures  expressly  confirm  us.  The  right  of  slaying 
the  house-breaker  clearly  implies  a  right  of  self-defence. 
Exod,  xxii  :  2.  The  law  of  the  cities  of  refuge  contains  the 
same  right.  Numb,  xxxv  :  22.  The  effect  of  this  permission 
is  evaded,  indeed,  .by  the  pretence  that  Moses'  legislation  was 
imperfect  and  barbarous,  and  is  corrected  by  the  milder  instruc- 
tions of  our  Saviour.  Matt,  v  :  39.  But  I  have  taught  you  the 
falsehoood  of  this  notion,  and  showed  you  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment teaches  precisely  the  same  morality  with  the  New, 

As   to  the   delegation  of  the  right  of  capital  punishment 
^    .   ,   ^    .  ,  for   flagrant  crimes,   the  feeble  attempt    has 

Capital    Punishment     ,  ■•       ^  .     .^         ■    •  .  r 

in  Scripture.  been    made    to   represent    the    injunction   01 

Gen.  ix  :  6  as  not  a  precept,  but  a  prediction  ; 
not  as  God's  instruction  what  ought  to  be  done  to  the  mur- 
derer, but  His  prophecy  of  what  human  vindictiveness  would 
do.  The  context  refutes  this.  This  command  for  the  capi- 
tal punishment  of  the  murderer,  having  been  given  to  Noah, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  4O3 

the  second  father  of  mankind,  and  before  there  was  a  chosen 
people,  is  of  course,  universal.  Look  also  at  the  express 
injunction  of  capital  punishments  for  several  crimes  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch :  for  murder,  Num.  xxxv  :  31  ;  for  striking  a  parent, 
Exod.  xxi :  15  :  for  adultery,  Levit.  xx  :  10;  for  religious  im- 
posture, Deut.  xiii :  5,  &c.  In  Numb,  xxxv  :  33,  a  reason  is 
given  which,  on  general  principles,  necessitates  the  capital 
punishment  of  murder  :  "  For  blood,  it  defileth  a  land,  and  the 
land  cannot  be  cleansed  of  the  blood  that  is  shed  therein,  but 
by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it."  Capital  punishments  are 
also  authorized  in  the  New  Testament.  Rom.  xiii  assures  us 
that  the  magistrate  "beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain,"  but  in 
bearing  it  he  is  God's  minister  to  execute  wrath  upon  the  evil- 
doer. 

Unprovoked  war  is  the  most  monstrous  secular  crime  that 

^  ^     .       ,„       can  be  committed  :  it  is  at  once  the  greatest 

7.     Defensive    War        r         ■^  j-ij.i  .     c  r 

l^awM.  °*   evils,    and    mcludes    the    worst    forms   of 

robbery  and  murder.  Wherever  war  is 
prompted  by  mere  pique,  or  lust  of  aggrandizement,  or  am- 
bition for  fame  and  power,  it  deserves  all  that  can  be  said  of 
its  mischiefs  and  criminality  by  the  most  zealous  advocates  of 
peace.  And  nothing  can  rescue  a  people  waging  war,  from 
this  guilt,  except  the  fact  that  their  appeal  to  arms  is  necessary 
for  the  defence  of  just  and  vital  rights.  But  while  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  this,  they  give  no  countenance  to  the  weak  fanati- 
cism, which  commands  governments  to  practice  a  passive 
non-resistance,  in  such  a  world  as  this.  Nations  are  usually 
unjust  and  unscrupulous.  The  very  fact  that  they  are  politi- 
cally sovereign  implies  that  there  is  no  umpire  between  them, 
except  Divine  Providence.  A  passive  attitude  would  usually 
only  provoke,  instead  of  disarming  attack.  Hence  its  only 
effect  would  be  to  bring  all  the  horrors  and  desolations  of 
invasion  upon  the  innocent  people,  while  the  guilty  went  free. 
God  has  therefore  both  permitted  and  instructed  rulers,  when 
thus  unjustly  assailed,  to  retort  these  miseries  upon  the  assail- 
ants who  introduce  them.  The  very  fact  that  all  war  is  so  ter- 
rific a'  scourge,  and  that  aggressive  war  is  such  an  enormous 
crime,  only  makes  it  more  clear  that  the  injured  party  are 
entitled  to  their  redress,  and  are  justified  in  inflicting  on  the 
injurers  such  chastisement  as  will  compel  their  return  to  justice, 
even  including  the  death  and  ruin  which  they  were  preparing 
against  their  inoffensive  neighbors. 

It  is  perfectly  clear  that  Sacred  Scripture  legalizes  such 
defensive  war.  Abram,  Moses,  Joshua,  Samuel,  David,  Josiah, 
the  Maccabees,  were  such  warriors :  and  they  were  God's 
chosen  saints.  It  was  "  through  faith  they  waxed  valiant  in 
fight,  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens."  Heb.  xi :  34. 
God  fought  for  and  with  them  by  giving,  in  their  battles, 
answers  to  their  prayers,   and    miraculous   assistance    to  their 


404  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

arms.  Under  the  New  Testament,  when  Christ's  forerunner 
was  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance,  he  did  not  enjoin  on 
soldiers  the  surrender  of  their  profession  as  sinful,  but  only  the 
restricting  of  themselves  to  its  lawful  duties.  The  New  Testa- 
ment tells  us  of  a  Centurion,  affectionately  commended  by  our 
Redeemer  as  possessed  of  "great  faith;"  and  of  a  Cornelius, 
who  was  "  accepted  with  God,  as  fearing  Him  and  working 
righteousness."  Luke  iii:i4;  vii  :  9;  Acts  x  :  35.  The 
Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  xiii  :  4,  tells  us  that  the  magistrate  "  bear- 
eth  not  the  sword  in  vain  ;  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God,  a 
revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon  him  that  doeth  evil."  It  would 
be  strange  indeed,  if  the  ruler  who  is  armed  by  God  with  the 
power  of  capital  punishment  against  the  domestic  murderer, 
could  not  justly  inflict  the  same  doom  on  the  foreign  criminal, 
who  invades  our  soil  unprovoked,  for  the  purpose  of  shedding 
blood.  The  security  of  life  and  property  which  the  magistrate 
is  intended  to  provide  by  his  power  of  punishing,  would  be 
illusory  indeed,  if  it  could  only  be  used  against  individual  crim- 
inals, while  the  more  mischievous  and  widespread  crimes  of 
organized  multitudes  must  go  unpunished.  Aggressive,  war  is 
wholesale  murder;  and  when  the  government  sends  out  its 
army  to  repel  and  chastise  the  invader,  it  does  but  inflict  sum- 
mary execution  on  the  murderer  caught  in  the  act. 

The  modern  duel  is  a  very  peculiar  usage,  which  has 
8.  Dueling  Murder,  descended  to  US  from  a  perversion  of  an 
institution  of  chivalry ;  the  ordeal  by  battle. 
This  was  a  means  adopted  by  the  ignorance  of  the  middle  ages, 
to  appeal  to  God's  judgment  where  the  question  of  right  was 
too  obscure  to  be  unravelled  by  their  rude  courts.  It  was 
founded  on  an  abuse  of  the  doctrine  of  Providence.  Because 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  this  providence  is  concerned  in  all 
events,  the  Middle  Ages  jumped  to  the  conclusion,  that  this 
providence  would  so  decide  the  issue,  as  to  vindicate  justice. 
It  needs  no  argument  to  show  you  the  fallacy.  Since  the  intel- 
hgence  of  modern  days  has  exploded  the  idea  of  the  divine 
ordeal,  the  duel  remains  a  barbarous  remnant  of  the  middle 
ages,  without  even  the  shadow  of  an  argument  in  its  favor. 

In  refuting  the  arguments  by  which  the  duel  is  defended,  I 

,      r       .     shall  not  take  the  ground  that  the  sentiment 
Arguments     for     it        r  11  •      •  •         1  1     • 

Futile.  o^  personal  honour  is   irrational   or  unchris- 

tian; I  shall  not  assume  that  it  is  no  real 
injury  to  wound  it.  My  position  is,  that  the  duel  is  no  proper 
remedy  for  that  injuiy.  And,  first :  the  only  lawful  object,  when 
one  is  wounded  in  his  honour,  is  self-defence,  and  not  revenge. 
The  latter  is  expressly  forbidden  in  every  case.  Now,  for  the  de- 
fence of  one's  honour  and  good  name,  a  duel  is  naught.  Per- 
haps where  malignant*  passions  are  not  harboured,  the  chal- 
lenger to  a  duel  is  most  frequently  actuated  by  this  feeling ; 
that  his  passive   endurance  of  an  insult  will    cause  his  fellow- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  405 

men  to  think  him  a  coward ;  and  that  therefore  he  must  expose 
himself  to  the  dangers  of  combat,  in  order  to  evince  that  he  is 
not  a  coward;  and  thus  retrieve  his  credit.  Now  dueHng  does 
not  prove  courage  ;  for  notoriously,  if  some  brave  men  have 
fought,  so  have  many  cowards.  It  only  proves  a  species  of 
moral  cowardice,  which  shrinks  from  the  path  of  rectitude,  and 
cowers  before  the  finger  of  scorn.  It  is  yet  more  obvious  that 
the  issue  of  the  duel  will  prove  nothing  as  to  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  the  charge  which  constituted  the  insult.  If  one  calls 
me  a  liar,  and  I  kill  him  therefor,  this  shows  nothing  whatever 
as  to  my  truth  or  falsehood.  The  proper  and  reasonable 
remedy  here,  is  to  require  the  accuser  to  substantiate  his  charge, 
or  else  confess  its  injustice.  His  refusal  to  do  either  would 
place  him  so  effectually  in  the  wrong,  that  no  other  reparation 
would  be  needed. 

Another  objection  to  the  duel  is,  that  it  usually  prevents, 
„    1   n  f  ■  ^'^^   ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^  most  deadly   manner,  that 

very  fairness  and  equality  which  it  boasts  of 
securing.  The  plea  is,  that  it  puts  the  weak  man  equal  to  the 
strong  one,  by  appealing  from  mere,  brute  muscle,  to  arms  and 
skill.  But  according  to  its  laws,  the  duel  authorizes  an  inequal- 
ity of  skill  far  more  deadly.  I  am  ignorant  of  the  use  of  the 
pistol.  A  violent  and  malignant  man  who  knows  himself  a  dead 
shot,  so  outrages  me  that  I  am  impelled  under  the  code  of 
honour,  to  challenge  him.  He,  exercising  the  right  of  the  chal- 
lenged, chooses  pistols.  Thus  he  has  me  more  completety  at 
a  disadvantage  than  if  he  were  a  pugilist  of  the  first  fame,  and 
I  an  infant ;  and  the  result  is  not  a  parcel  of  bruises,  but 
my  death.  The  system  is,  when  tried  by  its  own  pretences, 
flagrantly  unfair. 

It  is  also  absurdly  unequal  in  this :  that  if  its  proceedings 

have  any  justice,  then  it  puts  the  righteous 
Inm^ed^UnTusl  °^      ^    "^''^^'^  ^^^   ^^^^   culprit  on  the   same   footing. 

Unless  the  challenger  is  committing  a  mon- 
strous wrong,  he  must  hold  that  the  challenged  is  a  capital 
criminal:  for  does  he  not  claim  that  it  is  right  to  subject  .him 
to  the  liability  of  a  capital  punishment  ?  Why  then  should  the 
innocent  man,  already  so  grievously  wronged,  when  he  pro- 
ceeds to  inflict  the  righteous  penalty,  give  the  culprit  equal 
chances  to  inflict  the  same  penalty  on  him  ?  Shall  the  magis- 
trate, in  putting  a  condemned  felon  to  death,  courteously  invite 
him  to  take  his  equal  chances  to  put  the  magistrate  to  death  ? 
What  more  absurd  ?  If  the  assailant  really  deserves  to  die, 
and  this  is  duly  ascertained  (if  it  is  not,  the  challenger  is  guilty 
of  murder  in  seeking  to  slay  an  innocent  man)  then  by  all 
means,  let  him  be  killed,  without  giving  him  opportunity  to  per- 
petrate another  unprovoked  crime.  When  one  has  to  kill  a  mad 
dog,  he  does  not  feel  bound  to  give  the  dog  a  chance  to  bite 
him  ! 


406  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Last,    the    dueling  code    is  a    monstrous    one,    because   it 

makes     the     man    who    supposes     himself 

T  d^^^*^^"^^^^^   ^^        wronged,  accuser,  judge,  and  executioner  in 

his  own   cause.     It   is  righteously  then,  that 

the  statute   laws  of   the  Commonwealth  treat  the  duelist  who 

has  slain  his  adversary,  as  a  murderer  with  prepense  malice. 

One  plea  for  dueling  is,  that  it  is  the  necessary  chastise- 
ment for  classes  of  sins,  (as  against  one's 
good  name,  against  the  chastitY  of  one's 
family)  for  which  the  laws  afford  either  no  remedy,  or  such  a 
one  as  no  man  of  delicacy  can  seek.  The  answer  is :  that  if 
the  facts  are  true,  they  are  arguments  for  perfecting  the  penal 
laws,  not  for  the  iniquities  of  dueling.  Another  argument  is, 
that  nothing  but  the  code  of  honour  will  secure  chivalrous  man- 
ners ;  which  it  boasts  of  doing  through  the  influence  of  the 
knowledge  that  the  man  who  departs  from  that  style  of  man- 
ners is  in  danger  of  a  challenge.  The  answers  are  two.  Surely 
that  courtesy  has  little  claim  to  be  chivalrous,  which  is  only 
coerced  by  fear?  And  facts  show  that  the  influence  of  the 
code  is  not  what  is  claimed;  for  the  societies  where  it  has 
fullest  sway,  are  sometimes  the  rudest  and  most  debauched. 


LECTURE  XXXIV. 

SECOND  TABLE.     (7th  and  8th  COMMANDMENTS.) 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  are  the  scope  and  extent  of  the  yth  Commandment,  and  what  sins  are 
forbidden  under  it  ? 

2.  What  the  degree  of  guiU  in  adultery,  and  what  its  grounds  ? 

3.  Was  polygamy  ever  lawful?     Explain   Moses'  law  of  divorce.     Is  celibacy 
meritorious  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  i8.  Hodge's  Theology,  pt.  iii,  oh.  19,  g  II.  Dr.  C. 
C.  Jones'  Histoiy  of  Israelitish  Nation.     Michaelis'  Com.  on  Laws  of  jMoses. 

4.  Ought  this  precept  to  be  publicly  preached  ? 

5.  What  is  the  scope  of  the  8th  Commandment,  and  what  the  particular  duties 
and  sins  embraced  under  it  ? 

6.  What  is  the  origin  of  the  Right  of  Private  Property  ? 

7.  Is  usury  lawful  ? 

8.  Wliat  rule  should  govern  the  Christian  as  to  making  gain  of  his  neighbor's 
necessities  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  19.  Hodge  as  above,  §  12.  See,  on  whole,  Larger 
Catechism,  Qu.  137-142.  Calvin's  Inst.  bk.  ii,  ch.  8,  g  41-46.  Ridgeley's 
Div.,  Qu.  137-142.  Bp.  Hopkins  on  7th  and  8th  Commandments.  Green's 
Lect.  51-53. 

A  S  has  been  already  observed,   the    scope   of   the    seventh 

-^     commandment  is  to  regulate  the  relations  between  the 

sexes,  with  all  the  virtues  of  purity  connected 

I.  Scope  of  Seventh    ti^grcwith.     These   virtues  are    the  basis  of 
Commandment.  .  ,        .       . ,      . 

the  domestic  relations.     And  as  the  tamily  is 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  4O7 

the  foundation  of  human  society,  the  importance  of  the  class 
of  duties  involved  is  second  only  to  those  which  preserve  man's 
existence  itself.  It  should  be  added  also,  that  the  sins  against 
personal  purity  are  peculiarly  flagrant,  because  they  involve  in 
sensual  bestiality  the  body  which  is  the  habitation  of  the 
rational,  responsible  soul,  and  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
See  I  Cor.  vi  :  15,  &c.  Experience  also  shows  that  sins  of 
unchastity  have  a  peculiarly  imbruting  and  degrading  effect  on 
both  sexes,  but  especially  on  that  which  should  be  the  purer, 
seducing  them  to  hypocrisy,  lying,  treachery,  cruelty,  drunken- 
ness, gluttony,  and  shamelessness.  For  the  usual  details  of  the 
sins  embraced  under  the  capital  instance,  adultery,  I  refer  you 
to  your  catechisms. 

Adultery,  in  strictness  of  speech,  is  the  sin  of  illicit  cohabi- 
tation by  a  married  person.  Its  eminence  in 
adultery.'"'"^  ''^  °  criminality  is  due  to  these  traits ;  that  in 
addition  to  the  uncleanness,  it  involves  the 
breach  of  the  marriage  contract,  and  the  treachery  contained 
therein  ;  and  that  by  corrupting  the  descent  of  families,  it  up- 
roots the  whole  foundation  of  domestic  society.  Adultery  and 
causeless  divorce  are  directly  antagonistic  thereto.  They  are 
therefore  deadly  stabs  against  all  home  affections,  against  all 
training  of  children,  against  every  rudiment  of  social  order. 
Were  all  to  take  the  license  of  the  adulterer,  men  would  in  due 
time  be  reduced  precisely  to  the  degradation  of  wild  beasts. 
The  sin  of  the  adulterer  therefore,  is  scarcely  less  enormous 
than  that  of  the  murderer.  The  latter  destroys  man's  temporal 
existence ;  the  former  destroys  all  that  makes  existence  a  boon. 
Let  the  crime  of  the  adulterer  be  tried  by  its  effects  upon  the 
family  it  invades.  We  must  either  suppose  that  the  husband 
and  wife  have,  or  have  not,  the  sentiments  of  modesty,  natural 
jealousy,  purity,  and  shame,  usually  imputed  to  virtuous  per- 
sons. If  they  have  not,  then  the  lack  of  them  implies  a  degra- 
dation which  can  only  make  them  the  parents  of  reprobates  ; 
and  the  general  prevalence  of  such  a  type  of  character  would 
dissolve  domestic  society  into  ultimate  putrescence.  If  the 
parents  have  those  sentiments,  then  the  success  of  the  seducer 
plunges  the  husband  into  agonies  of  revenge,  despair  and 
wounded  affection,  the  guilty  wife  into  a  shame  and  remorse 
deeper  than  the  grave,  the  children  into  privation  of  a  mother, 
and  all  the  parties  into  a  bereavement  at  least  as  irreparable  as 
that  of  a  death,  and  far  more  bitter.  It  would  have  been,  in 
some  aspects,  a  less  crime  to  murder  the  mother  while  innocent. 
The  laws  of  Moses,  therefore,  very  properly  made  adultery 
a  capital  crime ;  nor  does  our  Saviour,  in  the 
^^Proper    Punishment     -^^-^^^^^    ^f  th^    ^^^^^^    t^ken    in    adultery, 

repeal  that  statute,  or  disallow  its  justice. 
The  legislation  of  modern,  nominally  Christian  nations,  is  drawn 
rather  from   the   grossness  of  Pagan  sources  than   from   Bible 


408  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

principles.  The  common  law  of  England,  and  the  statutes  and 
usages  which  our  Commonwealth  has  drawn  thence,  present  a 
most  inconsistent  state.  There  is  no  statute  whatever  for  pun- 
ishing adultery  as  a  crime  !  And  yet  a  usage,  which  is  as  fully 
recognized  both  in  England  and  Virginia  as  any  common  law, 
entitles  juries  to  acquit  the  injured  husband  of  murder  who  slays 
the  violator  of  his  bed  in  heat  of  blood.  This  seems  to  be  a 
recognition  of  the  capital  guilt  of  the  crime  of  adultery,  and  at 
the  same  time  an  allowance,  in  this  case,  of  the  barbarous  prin- 
ciple of  '  goelism,'  which  the  law,  in  all  other  cases,  has  so 
stringently  prohibited.  But  here  is  the  monstrous  inconsis- 
tency, that  if  the  crime  of  the  adulterer  be  of  long  standing, 
and  gradually  discovered,  no  matter  how  certain  the  guilt,  the 
husband,  because  no  longer  punishing  in  heat  of  blood,  is 
debarred  from  inflicting  the  just  punishment.  The  only  other 
remedy  that  remains  at  the  law  is  an  action  of  damages  against 
the  seducer,  in  which  the  injured  husband  is  constrained  to 
degrade  all  his  wrongs  to  the  sordid,  pecuniary  plea  of  the  loss 
of  his  wife's  services,  as  a  domestic,  by  this  interference.  A.nd 
juries  are  instructed,  after  ascertaining  that  there  has  been  an 
unjust  interruption  of  the  wife's  domestic  services,  to  appraise 
the  compensation,  not  at  its  commercial,  but  at  any  imaginary 
value,  which  the  seducer's  wealth  may  enable  him  to  pay. 
Such  is  the  wretched  fiction  which  the  law  offers  to  the  out- 
raged spouse  as  the  satisfaction  for  his  wrongs. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  much  causeless  doubt  and 
_.  ,_       debate  exist  among  expositors,  and  that  many 

3.  Divorce  and  Po-  .     •,  j      •      •  1  1  j     u      i-i 

lygamy  in  Pentateuch,  gratuitous  admissions  have  been  made  by  the 
most  of  them,  touching  the  true  status  of 
polygamy  and  divorce  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  so  much 
misapprehension  exists  about  the  two  cases,  that  the  general 
interests  of  truth  prompt  a  little  farther  separate  discussion  of 
each.  The  two  enactments  touching  divorce  which  present  the 
supposed  contradiction  in  the  strongest  form,  are  those  of 
Moses  in  Deut.  xxiv  :  i  to  4,  and  Matt,  xix  :  3  to  9.  These  the 
reader  is  requested  to  have  under  his  eye.  The  form  of  the 
Pharisees'  question  to  Christ,  "  Is  it  lawful  for  a  man  to  put 
away  his  wife  for  every  cause  ?  "  concurs  with  the  testimony  of 
Josephus,  in  teaching  us  that  a  monstrous  perversion  of  Moses' 
statute  then  prevailed.  The  licentious,  and  yet  self-righteous 
Pharisee  claimed,  as  one  of  his  most  unquestioned  privileges,  the 
right  to  repudiate  a  wife,  after  the  lapse  of  years,  and  birth  of 
children,  for  any  caprice  whatsoever.  The  trap  which  they 
now  laid  for  Christ  was  designed  to  compel  him  either  to  incur 
the  odium  of  attacking  this  usage,  guarded  by  a  jealous  anger, 
or  to  connive  at  their  interpretation  of  the  statute.  Manifestly 
Christ  does  not  concede  that  they  interpreted  Moses  rightly; 
but  indignantly  clears  the  legislation  of  that  holy  man  from 
their  licentious  perversions,  and  then,  because  of  their  abuse  of 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  4O9 

it,  repeals  it  by  His  plenary  authority.  He  refers  to  that  con- 
stitution of  the  marriage  tie  which  was  original,  which  preceded 
Moses,,  and  was  therefore  binding  when  Moses  wrote,  to  show 
that  it  was  impossible  he  could  have  enacted  what  they 
claimed.  What,  then,  did  Moses  enact?  Let  us  explain  it. 
In  the  ancient  society  of  the  East,  females  being  reared  in  com- 
parative seclusion,  and  marriages  negotiated  by  intermediaries, 
the  bridegroom  had  little  opportunity  for  a  familiar  acquaint- 
ance even  with  the  person  of  the  bride.  When  she  was 
brought  to  him  at  the  nuptials,  if  he  found  her  disfigured  with 
some  personal  deformity  or  disease,  (the  undoubted  meaning  of 
the  phrase  "  some  uncleanness "),  which  effectually  changed 
desire  into  disgust,  he  was  likely  to  regard  himself  as  swindled 
in  the  treaty,  and  to  send  the  rejected  bride  back  with  indignity 
to  her  father's  house.  There  she  was  reluctantly  received,  and 
in  the  anomalous  position  of  one  in  name  a  wife,  yet  without 
a  husband,  she  dragged  out  a  wretched  existence,  incapable  of 
marriage,  and  regarded  by  her  parents  and  brothers  as  a  dis- 
graceful incumbrance.  It  was  to  relieve  the  wretched  fate  of 
such  a  woman  that  Moses'  law  was  framed.  She  was  empow- 
ered to  exact  of  her  proposed  husband  a  formal  annulment  of 
the  unconsummated  contract,  and  to  resume  the  status  of  a 
single  woman,  eligible  for  another  marriage.  It  is  plain  that 
Moses'  law  contemplates  the  case,  only,  in  which  no  consumma- 
tion of  marriage  takes  place.  She  finds  no  favour  in  the  eyes 
"  of  the  bridegroom."  He  is  so  indignant  and  disgusted  that 
desire  is  put  to.  flight  by  repugnance.  The  same  fact  appears 
from  the  condition  of  the  law,  that  she  shall  in  no  case  return 
to  this  man,  "  after  she  is  defiled,"  i.  e.,  after  actual  cohabita- 
tion with  another  man  had  made  her  unapproachable  (without 
moral  defilement)  by  the  first.  Such  was  the  narrow  extent  of 
this  law.  The  act  for  which  it  provided  was  divorce  only  in 
name,  where  that  consensus,  qui  matrivioiduni  facit,  in  the  words 
of  the  law  maxim,  had  never  been  perfected.  The  state  of 
social  usages  among  the  Hebrews,  with  parental  and  fraternal 
severity  towards  the  unfortunate  daughter  and  sister,  rendered 
the  legislation  of  Moses  necessary  and  righteous  at  the  time ; 
but  "  a  greater  than  Moses "  was  now  here ;  and  He,  after 
defending  the  inspired  law-giver  from  their  vile  misrepresenta- 
tion, proceeded  to  repeal  the  law,  because  it  had  been  so  per- 
verted, and  because  the  social  changes  of  the  age  had  removed 
its  righteous  grounds. 

Under  the  New  Testament,  divorce  proper  can  take  place 
only  on  two  grounds,  adultery  and  permanent  desertion.  See 
Matt,  xix  :  9;  v  :  32;  i  Cor.  vii  :  15.  A  careful  examination 
of  these  passages  will  lead  us  to  these  truths :  That  marriage 
is  a  permanent  and  exclusive  union  of  one  woman  to  one  man ; 
and  so,  can  only  be  innocently  dissolved  by  death :  But  that 
extreme  criminality  and  breach  of  contract   by  one  party  anni- 


410  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

hilates  the  bond  so  that  the  criminal  is  as  though  he  were  dead 
to  the  other  :  That  the  only  sins  against  the  bond,  which  have 
this  effect,  are  those  which  are  absolutely  incompatible  \yith  the 
relation,  adultery,  and  wilful,  final  desertion.  In  these  cases, 
the  bond  having  been  destroyed  for  the  innocent  party,  he  is  as 
completely  a  single  man,  as  though  the  other  were  dead.  Some 
commonwealths  have  added  many  other  trivial  causes  of 
divorce  ;  thus  sinning  grievously  against  God  and  the  purity  of 
the  people.  The  Church  may  not  recognize  by  her  officers  or 
acts,  any  of  these  unscriptural  grounds,  or  the  pretended 
divorces  founded  on  them. 

The  case  of  the  polygamist  is  still  clearer ;  for  we  assert 
that  the  whole  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of  all  the  Old 
Testament  is  only  adverse  to  polygamy.  As  some  Christian 
divines  have  taught  otherwise,  we  must  ask  the  reader's  atten- 
tion and  patience  for  a  brief  statement.  Polygamy  is  recorded 
of  Abraham,  Jacob,  Gideon,  Elkanah,  David,  Solomon ;  but 
so  are  other  sins  of  several  of  these  ;  and,  as  every  intelligent 
reader  knows,  the  truthful  narrative  of  holy  writ  as  often  dis- 
closes the  sins  of  good  men  for  our  warning,  as  their  virtues  for 
our  imitation.  And  he  who  notes  how,  in  every  Bible  instance, 
polygamy  appears  as  the  cause  of  domestic  feuds,  sin,  and  dis- 
aster, will  have  little  doubt  that  the  Holy  Spirit  tacitly  holds  all 
these  cases  up  for  our  caution,  and  not  our  approval.  But,  then, 
God  made  Adam  one  wife  only,  and  taught  him  the  great  law  of 
the  perpetual  unity  of  the  twain,  just  as  it  is  now  expounded  by 
Jesus  Christ,  (Genesis  ii  :  23,  24,  with  Matthew  xix  :  4  to  6). 
God  preserved  but  one  wife  each  to  Noah  and  his  sons.  In 
every  statute  and  preceptive  word  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is 
always  wife,  and  not  wives.  The  prophets  everywhere  teach 
how  to  treat  a  wife,  and  not  wives.  Moses,  Leviticus  xviii  :  18, 
in  the  code  regulating  marriage,  expressly  prohibits  the  mar- 
riage of  a  second  wife  in  the  life  of  the  first,  thus  enjoining 
monogamy  in  terms  as  clear  as  Christ's.  Our  English  version 
hath  it:  "Neither  shalt  thou  take  a  wife  to  her  sister,  to  vex 
her,  to  uncover  her  nakedness,  besides  the  other,  in  her  life- 
time." Many  insist  on  taking  the  word  sister  here  in  its  literal 
sense,  and  thus  force  on  the  law  the  meaning  that  the  man 
desiring  to  practice  polygamy  may  do  so,  provided  he  does  not 
marry  two  daughters  of  the  same  parents ;  for  if  he  did 
this,  the  two  sisters  sharing  his  bed  would,  like  Rachel  and 
Leah,  quarrel  more  fiercely  than  two  strangers.  But  the  word 
"sister"  must  undoubtedly  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  mates,  fel- 
lows, (which  it  bears  in  a  number  of  places,  e.  g.,  Exod.  xxvi  3, 
5,  6,  17  ;  Ezek.  i  :  9  and  iii  :  13),  and  this  for  two  controlling 
reasons.  The  other  sense  makes  Moses  talk  nonsense  and 
folly,  in  the  supposed  reason  for  his  prohibition ;  in  that  it 
makes  him  argue  that  two  sisters  sharing  one  man's  bed  will 
quarrel,  but  two  women  having  no  kindred  blood  will   not.     It 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  411 

is  false  to  fact  and  to  nature.  Did  Leah  and  Rachel  show 
more  jealousy  than  Sarah  and  Hagar,  Hannah  and  Peninnah? 
But  when  we  understand  the  law  in  its  obvious  sense,  that  the 
husband  shall  not  divide  his  bed  with  a  second  mate,  the  first 
still  living,  because  such  a  wrong  ever  harrows  and  outrages  the 
great  instincts  placed  in  a  woman's  heart  by  her  Creator,  we 
make  Moses  talk  truth  and  logic  worthy  of  a  profound  legis- 
lator. The  other  reason  for  this  construction  is,  that  the  other 
sense  places  the  i8th  verse  in  irreconcilable  contradiction  to 
the  i6th  verse.  This  forbids  the  marriage  of  a  woman  to  the 
husband  of  her  deceased  sister  ;  while  the  i8th  verse,  with  this 
false  reading,  would  authorize  it. 

Once  more:  Malachi  (chap,  ii  :  14,  15),  rebuking  the  vari- 
ous corruptions  of  the  Jews,  evidently  includes  polygamy ;  for 
he  argues  m  favour  of  monogamy  (and  also  against  causeless 
divorce)  from  the  fact  that  God,  "  who  had  the  residue  of  the 
Spirit,"  and  could  as  easily  have  created  a  thousand  women  for 
each  man  as  a  single  one,  made  the  numbers  of  the  sexes  equal 
from  the  beginning.  He  states  this  as  the  motive,  "  that  He 
might  seek  a  godly  seed;"  that  is  to  say,  that  the  object  of 
God  in  the  marriage  relation  was  the  right  rearing  of  children, 
which  polygamy  notoriously  hinders.  Now  the  commission  of 
an  Old  Testament  prophet  was  not  to  legislate  a  new  dispensa- 
tion, for  the  laws  of  Moses  were  in  full  force  ;  the  prophets' 
business  was  to  expound  them.  Hence,  we  infer  that  the  laws 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  on  the  subject  of  polygamy  had 
always  been  such  as  Malachi  declared  them.  He  was  but 
applying  Moses'  principles. 

To  the  assertion  that  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
countenanced polygamy  as  really  as  the  New  Testament,  it  has 
been  objected  that  the  practice  was  maintained  by  men  too 
pious  towards  God  to  be  capable  of  continuing  in  it  against 
express  precept ;  as,  for  instance,  by  the  "  king  after  God's  own 
heart,"  David.  Did  not  he  also  commit  murder  and  adultery  ? 
Surely  there  is  no  question  whether  Moses  forbids  these  !  The 
history  of  good  men,  alas !  shows  us  too  plainly  the  power  of 
general  evil  example,  custom,  temptation,  and  self-love,  in 
blinding  the  honest  conscience.  It  has  been  objected  that 
polygamy  was  so  universally  practised,  and  so  prized,  that 
Moses  would  never  have  dared  to  attempt  its  extinction. 
When  will  men  learn  that  the  author  of  the  Old  Testament 
law  was  not  Moses,  but  God?  Is  God  timid?  Does  He  fear 
to  deal  firmly  with  His  creatures?  But  it  is  denied  that  there  is 
any  evidence  that  polygamy  was  greatly  prevalent  among  the 
Hebrews.  And  nothing  is  easier  than  to  show  that,  if  it  had 
been,  Moses  was  a  legislator  bold  enough  to  grapple  with  it. 
What  more  hardy  than  his  dealing  with  the  sabbatical  year, 
with  idolatry?  It  is  objected  that  the  marriage  of  the  widow 
who  was   childless   to  the  brother  of  the   deceased,  to  raise  up 


412  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

seed  to  the  dead,  presents  a  case  of  polygamy  actually  com- 
manded. We  reply,  no  one  can  show  that  the  next  of  kin  was 
permitted  or  required  to  form  such  marriage  when  he  already 
had  a  wife.  The  celebrated  J.  D.  Michaelis,  a  witness  learned 
and  not  too  favourable,  says,  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Laws 
of  Moses,  of  this  law,  "  Nor  did  it  affect  a  brother  having 
already  a  wife  of  his  own."     Book  iii,  ch.  vi.  §  98. 

It  is  objected  that  polygamy  is  recognized  as  a  permitted 
relation  in  Deut.  xxi  :  15-17,  where  the  husband  of  a  polygam- 
ous marriage  is  forbidden  to  transfer  the  brirthright  from  tiie 
eldest  son  to  a  younger,  the  child  of  a  more  favoured  wife ;  and 
in  Exod.  xxi  :  9,  10,  where  the  husband  is  forbidden  to  deprive 
a  less  favoured  wife  of  her  marital  rights  and  maintenance. 
Both  these  cases  are  explained  by  the  admitted  principle,  that 
there  may  be  relations  which  it  was  sin  to  form,  and  which  yet 
it  is  sinful  to  break  when  formed.  No  one  doubts  whether  the 
New  Testament  makes  polygamy  unlawful ;  yet  it  seems  prob- 
able that  the  apostles  gave  the  same  instructions  to  the  hus- 
bands of  a  plurality  of  wives  entering  the  Christian  Church. 
There  appears,  then,  no  evidence  that  polygamy  was  allowed  in 
the  laws  of  Moses. 

The  light  of  nature,  as  revealed  in  the  sentiments  of  nearly 
all  mankind,  teaches  that  there  are  degrees  of  relationship, 
between  which  marriage  would  be  unnatural  and  monstrous. 
Thus,  most  commonwealths  make  incest  penal.  The  only 
place  in  the  Scriptures,  where  these  degrees  are  laid  down,  is 
Levit.  xviii.  Concerning  this  place  two  important  questions 
arise:  i.  Is  this  law  still  binding?  2.  How  is  it  to  be  ex- 
pounded? We  hold  that  this  law,  although  found  in  the 
Hebrew  code,  has  not  passed  away ;  because  neither  ceremo- 
nial nor  typical,  and  because  founded  in  traits  of  man  and 
society  common  to  alt  races  and  ages.  We  argue  also,  pre- 
sumptively, that  if  this  law  is  a  dead  one,  then  the  Scriptures  con- 
tain nowhere  a  distinct  legislation  against  this  great  crime  of 
incest.  But  we  have  more  positive  proof  In  the  law  itself  it 
is  extended  to  foreigners  dwelling  in  Israel.  (Levit.  xviii  :  26)  • 
and  to  all  pagan  nations,  equally  with  the  Hebrew,  (verses  24 
to  27).  In  the  New  Testament,  we  find  the  same  law  enforced 
by  the  Apostle  Paul,  i  Cor.  v  :  i.  For  this  incestuous  mem- 
ber ^  evidently  took  his  step-mother  as  his  wife.  Unless  this 
Levitical  law  is  the  one  on  which  this  man  is  condemned,  there 
is  no  other.  The  permanent,  rational  grounds,  for  prohibiting 
marriage  within  these  degrees,  seem  to  be  the  following :  The 
marital  affection  is  unique,  and  such  that  it  cannot  righteously 
obtain  towards  more  than  one  object.  But  the  virtuous  social 
affections,  which  should  obtain  towards  near  relatives,  embrace 
all  such  with  similar  sentiments,  though  varying  in  degree.  The 
one  affection  is  incompatible  with  the  other.  The  fraternal,  for 
instance,  excludes   marital.     Second,  if  the  more  intimate  rela- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  413 

tions  were  legitimately  in  prospect,  between  persons  who  must 
before  live  in  the  daily  intimacy  of  the  same  home,  temptation 
presented  by  this  privacy  and  opportunity  would  corrupt  the 
family  and  reduce  it  to  a  bestial  grossness.  And  third  :  man's 
animal  nature  now  utters  its  protest,  by  the  deterioration  and 
congenital  infirmities,  which  it  visits  usually  on  the  unfortunate 
children  of  these  marriages  within  lawful  degrees.  Naturalists 
now  teach,  that  among  the  lower  animals,  the  deterioration  of 
offspring  from  "  breeding  in  "  depends  on  the  question,  whether 
the  blood  of  the  parents  is  purely  of  one  variety.  They  say 
that  if  it  is,  no  depreciation  appears.  But  if  the  parents  are  of 
a  mixed  stock,  "  breeding  in  "  results  in  a  rapid  decline  of  the 
progeny. 

This  curious  fact  may  perhaps  throw  some  light  on  the  dif- 
ficult question  :  whence  Adam's  son's  drew  their  wives  without 
incest.  We,  who  hold  to  the  unity  of  the  race,  must  answer 
that  they  married  their  own  sisters.  Must  we  admit  then,  that 
an  act  which  is  now  monstrous,  was  then  legitimate  ?  Does 
not  this  admission  tend  to  place  the  law  against  incest  among 
the  merely  positive  and  temporary  precepts  ?  The  only  reply 
is :  that  the  trite  saw,  "  Circumstances  alter  cases,"  has  some 
proper  applications  even  to  problems  essentially  moral.  The 
peculiar  condition  of  the  human  family  may  have  rendered  that 
proper  at  first,  which,  under  changed  conditions  became  mor- 
ally wrong.  Among  these  circumstances,  was  the  purity  or 
homogeneity  of  the  blood.  There  was  absolutely  but  the  one 
variety  of  the.  human  race ;  so  that  deterioration  of  the  prog- 
eny by  physical  law  could  not  follow.  But  now,  in  consequence 
of  the  dispersions  and  immigrations  of  the  race,  the  blood  of 
every  tribe  is  mixed,  and  breeding  in  becomes  a  crime  against 
the  offspring.  But  we  know  too  little  of  the  scanty  history  of 
the  first  men,  to  speculate  with  safety  here.  The  command  to 
replenish  the  earth  was  given  to  Adam  and  Eve  in  their  pure 
estate,  in  which,  had  it  continued,  incest,  like  every  other  sin, 
would  have  been  impossible.  Who  can  deny,  but  that  the  mar- 
riages contracted  between  the  sons  and  daughters  of  the  first 
parents,  after  the  fall,  were  sinful  in  God's  eyes?  It  is  not  un- 
reasonable to  suppose  that,  thus,  the  very  propagation  of  the 
degraded  race,  to  which  its  present  earthly  existence  under  the 
mercy  of  God  is  due,  began  in  sin  and  shame  ;  that  its  very 
perpetuation  is   the  tolerated  consequence  of  a  flagrant  crime  ! 

Every  Christian  Church  and  commonwealth  has  acted  on 
the  belief,  that  this  Levitical  law  fixes,  for  all  subsequent  time, 
the  degrees  within  v/hich  marriage  is  lawful.  The  second  ques- 
tion is  touching  its  interpretation.  We  must  either  assume  that 
every  degree  within  which  God  designed  to  prohibit  marriage 
is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  law  :  or  that  the  prohibitions  men- 
tioned are  representatives  of  classes.  The  former  construction 
is  excluded  by  this  thought ;  that  it  would  have  permitted  cases 


414  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  incest  precisely  as  unnatural  and  monstrous  as  those  so 
sternly  forbidden.  Why  should  it  be  a  crime  for  a  man  to 
marry  the  widow  of  his  deceased  brother  ;  and  legitimate  for  a 
woman  to  marry  the  husband  of  a  deceased  sister  ?  Hence, 
all  sound  expositors  are  agreed  in  this  view.  That  when  mar- 
riage within  a  given  relationship  is  forbidden,  this  excludes  the 
connection  between  other  corresponding  degrees  of  the  same 
nearness.  The  law  in  some  cases,  as  in  verse  lO,  extends 
itself  on  this  principle,  and  thus  confirms  our  construction. 

Rome  and  many  other  corrupt  Churches,  while  allowing 
marriage  to  be  lawful  for  laymen,  yet  exalt  celibacy  as  a  state 
of  superior  purity  and  excellence.  She  seeks  to  find  ground 
for  this,  in  such  passages  as  Matt,  xix  ;  11-13  ;  i  Cor.  vii  :  34. 
We  set  her  plea  aside,  by  showing  that  the  New  Testament  only 
advises  celibacy  as  a  matter  of  prudence,  (not  of  sanctity)  in 
times  of  persecution  and  uncertainty.  Rome's  doctrine  finds 
its  real  origin  in  the  philosophy  of  the  Gnostics  and  Mani- 
chaeans,  who  regarded  the  flesh  as  the  source  of  all  evil,  and 
hence  its  propagation  as  unholy.  The  same  error  led  them  to 
deny  Christ's  corporeal  humanity,  and  the  resurrection  of  the 
body.  It  needs  no  refutation  here.  That  "  marriage  is  honour- 
able in  all,"  we  argue  from  man's  very  nature,  as  male  and 
female :  from  the  fact  that  God  instituted  it  for  man  in  Para- 
dise :  from  the  example  of  the  holiest  prophets  :  from  the  fact 
that  it  is  the  chosen  type  of  Christ's  union  to  his  Church  :  and 
from  its  necessity  to  the  existence  of  man's  most  holy  social 
affections,  as  the  maternal. 

A  supposed  obligation  of  propriety  and  delicacy  has  usu- 
r;-         .    ^c       a     ally  kept  our  pulpits  silent  concerning  the 

oins  against  oGventh  -'  x^  jt      jt  o 

Commandment  to  be  sins  of  uncliastity  ;  and  hence,  no  doubt,  in 
Rebuked  with  Sane-  large  part,  the  shocking  callousness  and  un- 
'^'  soundness  of  public   opinion  concerning  the 

sins  of  its  breach.  It  is  my  opinion  that  this  omission  should 
be  corrected  by  the  pastors.  When  I  say  this,  I  would  not  by 
any  means  be  understood  as  encouraging  ministers  to  disregard 
any  sentiment  of  delicacy  or  propriety  .which  may  exist.  On 
the  contrary,  all  such  sentiments,  where  not  positively  false,  are 
to  be  honoured  by  him  ;  and  he  should  be,  in  all  his  intercourse, 
the  model  of  delicacy.  But  there  is  a  guarded  and  holy  way 
of  discussing  such  subjects,  which  clearly  reveals  chastity  and 
not  pruriency  as  its  temper,  axid  purity  as  its  object.  This  is 
the  style  in  which  the  pastor  should  speak  on  these  difficult 
subjects. 

In  discussing  the  eighth  commandment,  we  proceed   from 

the   duties  of  chastity  to   those   of  commu- 

Commandment.   '^^'      tative  justice.     The  scope  of  the  command 

is  to  protect  the  rights  of  property.     Under 

the  simple  head   of  "  stealing"   it  "  forbids   whatsoever  doth  or 

may  unjustly  hinder  our   own,   or  our  neighbour's  wealth  and 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  415 

outward  estate ;"  and  "  requireth  the  lawful  procuring  and  fur- 
therance of  the  wealth  of  ourselves  and  others."  This  expo- 
sition implies  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  a  man  may  steal 
from  himself.  While  there  is  a  sense  in  which  our  property 
belongs  to  us,  and  not  to  our  neighbour,  and  his  to  him,  and  not 
to  us ;  yet  we  are  all  stewards  of  God,  and  in  the  higher  sense, 
all  property  belongs  to  Him.  Obviously  then,  God's  property 
right  may  be  as- much  outraged  by  our  misuse  of  what  is  law- 
fully in  our  stewardship,  as  by  interfering  with  another's  trust. 
The  forms  in  which  the  worldly  estate  of  our  neighbour  may  be 
wronged,  are  innumerable.  The  essence  of  theft  is  in  the  vio- 
lation of  the  Golden  Rule  as  to  our  neighbour's  property.  .  The 
essence  of  steahng  is  the  obtaining  our  neighbour's  goods  with- 
out his  intentional  consent  and  without  fair  market  value  re- 
turned. However  it  may  be  done,  whenever  we  get  from  our 
neighbour  something  for  nothing,  without  his  consent,  there  is 
theft. 

This    commandment    requires    us,   as   to   our  own  wordly 
estate,  to  practice  such   industry  as  will  pro- 
Special  Sins  and  Du-   ^j^^  ^^^  ourselves  and  those  dependent  on  us 
ties  under  it.  ,  ,     .  .  1  •  n 

a  decent  subsistence — to  eschew  idleness, 
which  is  a  species  of  robbery  practiced  on  the  common  hive  by 
the  drone ;  to  avoid  prodigality  ;  and  to  appropriate  our  own 
goods  in  due  proportion  to  their  proper  uses.  The  command- 
ment, as  it  applies  to  our  neighbour's  wealth,  forbids  robbery, 
or  forcible  taking,  theft,  or  taking  by  stealth,  all  swindling  and 
getting  of  property  by  false  pretences ;  forestalling  and  regra- 
ting  in  times  of  scarcity  ;  wastefulness,  tending  to  the  greed  for 
other's  wealth,  extortion,  embezzlement  of  public  wealth,  false 
measures  and  weights,  contracting  debts  beyond  the  known 
ability  to  pay,  eating  usury,  gambling,  infidelity  in  working  for 
wages,  or  in  the  quality  of  things  manufactured  for  sale,  avail- 
ing oneself  of  legal  advantages  for  evading  obligations  mor- 
ally binding,  &c.,  &c. 

But  what  is  the  origin  of  the  moral  rights  of  possession  ? 
The  sense  of  mewii  and  tninn  is  one  of  the 
sioii  Whlnce°^  Posses-  earliest  rational  ideas  developed,  and  con- 
tinues to  be  one  of  the  strongest.  But  its 
ethical  origin  has  been  much  debated.  Some  have  reasoned 
that  in  a  state  of  nature,  it  arose  out  of  first  possession.  But 
is  not  priority  in  finding  and  possessing  a  natural  object,  a  mere 
accident?  And  if  men  are  naturally  equal  in  rights,  as  these 
persons  always  assume,  can  it  be  that  a  mere  accident  deter- 
mines the  moral  right?  Some,  therefore,  desert  this  theory, 
and  suppose  that  the  right  of  possession  in  a  state  of  nature, 
arises  out  of  the  expenditure  of  some  labour  on  the  object  pos- 
sessed. This  theory,  again,  fails  to  account  for  many  cases, 
where  no  labour  is  bestowed,  and  yet  the  right  is  perfect ;  and 
it  is  moreover,  unreasonable.     Jurists   incline    much  to  make 


4l6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

property  the  mere  creature  of  civil  law.  This  is  evidently  erro- 
neous. For  the  right  of  property  must  precede  civil  society, 
being  one  of  the  foundations  on  which  it  is  built.  These  futile 
surmises  illustrate  the  folly  and  defect  of  a  philosophy  which 
insists  on  proceeding  upon  mere  naturalistic  grounds.  These 
men  leave  out  God,  the  most  essential,  and  in  a  true  sense,  the 
most  '  natural '  member  of  the  theorem  ;  and  they  assume  a 
'state  of  nature,'  in  which  no  creature  ever  rightfully  existed. 
No  wonder,  therefore,  that  their  solution  is  abortive.  Now,  the 
truth  is,  that  there  is  but  one  perfect  source  for  a  right  of  prop- 
erty, creation  out  of  nothing ;  and  consequently,  but  one  natu- 
ral proprietor,  God  the  Maker.  The  only  rational  solution  of 
the  existence  of  a  right  of  property  in  man  is  also  the  scriptu- 
ral one,  that  contained  in  the  second  and  ninth  chapters  of 
Genesis,  God's  gift  of  the  world  and  its  contents  to  man,  as  His 
tenant.  Our  individual  interests  in  the  gift  are,  then,  based  on 
the  golden  Rule,  and  properly  regulated  in  detail  by  the  laws  of 
civil  society.  This  position  is  vital  to  our  security.  For  on 
any  lower  theory  of  right,  an  invasion  of  property  may  be 
plausibly  justified  whenever  the  majority  persuade  themselves 
that  it  is  most  politic. 

The  question  whether  all  usury,  or  hire  for  the  use  of 
money,  is  not  unrighteous,  was  much  de- 
lawful,  if  Moderate.  bated  by  mediaeval  moralists.  The  usual 
argument  against  it  was,  that  money  coin, 
had  in  it  no  power  of  increase.  A  box  of  coin,  said  these 
Scholastics,  is  not  like  a  measure  of  corn,  capable  of  germina- 
tion and  increase ;  it  is  as  barren,  if  left  to  itself,  as  the  gravel 
of  the  Sahara.  It  is  labour  only  (or  nature)  which  multiplies 
values.  Hence  to  exact  hire  for  money  is  taking  something  for 
nothing — essential  theft.  And  the  legislation  of  Moses,  which 
prohibited  the  taking  of  any  usury  from  brother  Hebrews,  was 
misunderstood,  and  then  cited  to  confirm  their  conclusion. 

If  their  premises  were  true,  their  conclusion  would  be 
valid.  Money  is  not,  in  fact,  fruitless,  and  utterly  devoid  of  a 
power  of  reproduction.  It  is  a  mere  illusion  to  compare  the 
box  of  coin  to  a  box  of  barren  gravel.  For  money  is  the  rep- 
resentative of  values  ;  it  is  its  purchasing  power,  and  not  its 
metallic  constitution  as  simple  matter,  which  makes  it  money. 
Now  values  are  reproductive.  Capital  has  a  true  power  of 
increase.  The  multiplication  of  values  is  by  the  combination 
of  capital  and  labour.  If  labour  fecundates  capital,  it  is 
equally  true  that  capital  arms  labour  for  success.  Hence,  it  is 
just  as  fair  that  capital  lent  should  receive  its  just  hire,  as  that 
labour  should. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  Bible  never  commits 
itself  to  any  erroneous  philosophy,  no  matter  how  current 
among  men.  The  Hebrew  laws,  properly  understood,  do  not 
condemn  all   usury  as  sinful.     They  permit  taking  reasonable 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  417 

usury  from  Gentiles,  forbid  it  from  their  brethren.  Nor  was 
this  permission  as  to  Gentiles  an  expression  of  hostility 
towards  them.  The  system  of  Moses  harboured  no  such 
spirit;  but  taught  the  Hebrews  to  regard  Gentiles  (except  the 
Amorites,  &c.)  as  neighbours.  On  the  contrary,  the  taking  of 
a  fair  hire  for  money  lent,  lawful  and  reasonable  in  itself,  was 
only  forbidden  as  to  their  Hebrew  brethren,  as  one  instance  of 
that  special  fraternity  and  mutual  help,  which  God  enjoined  on 
them  as  pensioners  upon  His  land.  The  case  stands  on  the 
same  footing  with  the  prohibition  to  glean  the  fields,  to  beat 
the  olive  groves,  or  to  take  up  the  sheaf  casually  dropped  on 
the  road.  These  things  were  exacted,  as  special  contributions 
to  their  more  needy  brethren.  The  law  of  the  case  may  be 
seen  in  Exod.  xxii  :  25  ;  Levit.  xxv  :  36,  37  ;  Deut.  xxiii :  19, 
20 ;  Nehem.  v  :  7  and  8,  &c.  ;  Matt,  xxv  :  27. 

When  we  take  advantage  of  the  urgent  necessities  of  our 
8.  Buying  and  Sell-   neighbour,    in    buying   or    selling,     we     sin 
ing  under  the  Law  of   against    both    honesty   and   charity.      If  our 
^1^^"^-  neighbour  is   compelled  by  his  wants  to  sell 

some  commodity,  for  whatever  he  can  get,  that  fact  does  not 
make  that  commodity  worth  less  than  the  market  price  to  you 
who  buy  it.  If  he  is  compelled  to  have  some  commodity 
instantly,  whatever  it  may  cost  him,  that  fact  does  not  make  it 
worth  more  than  the  market  price  to  you  who  sell  it  to  him.  If 
therefore,  you  take  advantage  of  his  necessity,  to  force  him  to 
sell  you  his  goods  for  a  less  price  than  you  yourself  would  give, 
if  you  could  not  take  this  advantage,  you  rob  him  of  the  differ- 
ence. And  it  is  fraud  committed  under  peculiarly  base  circum- 
staeces.  For  his  necessity,  instead  of  arousing  your  cupidity, 
ought  to  excite  compassion.  Instead  of  taking  advantage  of 
his  necessities,  you  should  charitably  aid  in  relieving  them. 
Such  measures  are  excused,  I  know,  by  saying  that  he  makes 
the  bargain  voluntarily,  or  that  his  necessity  makes  the  price 
which  you  give  him,  actually  worth  to  him  individually,  in  his 
circumstances,  what  he  gave  in  exchange  for  it.  To  these 
heartless  excuses  there  is  one  answer,  which  at  a  touch,  ex- 
poses their  worthlessness,  "  Do  unto  others  as  ye  would 
they  should  do  unto  you."  How  would  you  like  to  have  your 
necessity  thus  abused?  And  yet,  how  many  men  are  there 
who  watch,  like  harpies,  for  these  opportunities  to  make  what 
they  call  a  good  bargain. 

It  is  much  to  be  feared  that  one  chief  trait  of  modern  civ- 
ilization is  its  fertility  in  expedients  by  which  theft  maybe  com- 
mitted without  incurring  its  social  and  legal  penalties.  The 
Wise  Man  has  said,  that  •' money  answereth  all  things."  Its 
purchasing  power  commands  all  material,  and  many  intellectual 
values.  Hence  the  desire  for  money,  or  avarice,  is  the  protean 
and  all-including  affection.  Money  gratifies  ambition,  pride, 
all  sensual  appetites,  in  a  word,  all  the  appetencies  which  make 
27* 


41 8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

up  the  "  carnal  mind."  Hence  the  eighth  commandment,  is, 
in  a  pecuHar  sense,  the  perpetual  object  of  invasion  and  assault 
in  the  daily  lives  of  worldly  men.  With  the  multiplication  of 
the  expedients  and  combinations  for  creating  wealth,  oppor- 
tunities by  which  astute  men  can  abstract  their  fellows'  posses- 
sions without  just  equivalent,  are  enormously  multiplied.  The 
intricacies  of  finance,  the  power  of  boards  of  directors  sitting 
in  secret  to  enhance  or  depreciate  the  values  entrusted  to  them, 
the  vastness  and  complication  of  the  business  and  obligations 
of  the  great  corporations  who  are  debtors  to  multitudes  of 
private  persons,  rendering  the  credit  of  the  former  a  question 
utterly  unfathomable  to  their  creditors  ;  the  unscrupulous 
means  for  blighting  the  credit  of  securities ;  and  a  thousand 
other  arts  of  like  character,  enable  the  adepts  to  filch  from 
their  neighbours  vast  aggregates  of  wealth.  All  these  meas- 
ures are  but  disguised  thefts.  And  alas !  they  constitute  a 
large  part  of  modern  methods  of  business.  The  sudden  accu- 
mulation of  a  large  speculative  fortune  can  rarely  be  innocent, 
and  ought  not  to  be  the  object  of  any  Christian's  desire.  So, 
the  concealment  from  the  vendor  of  a  recent  increase  in  the 
value  of  what  he  sells,  in  order  to  buy  it  for  less  than  its  worth, 
is  an  injustice  exactly  parallel  to  the  concealment  of  a  defect 
in  the  thing  sold  for  the  purpose  of  getting  more  than  its 
worth.  Those  who  plead  for  this,  urge  that  their  special 
knowledge  is  their  private  property,  which  they  have  a  right  to 
use  for  their  own  profit.  The  answer  is,  that  knowledge  affect- 
ing a  joint  transaction,  like  bargain  and  sale,  where  two  parties' 
rights  are  equitably  involved,  is  not  private  property,  and  can- 
not be  monopolized  without  violating  the  law  of  love.  It 
should  be  admitted,  that  when  merchants  employ  their  means 
and  industry  to  collect  useful  commercial  intelligence,  a  fair 
compensation  for  that  use  of  capital  and  labour  should  be  a 
part  of  the  lawful  profits  of  traffic.  But  when  this  power  of 
knowledge  is  pressed  beyond  that  limit,  it  becomes  a  breach  of 
the  precept.  It  is  to  be  feared,  that  the  chief  practical  obsta- 
cle to  the  proper  exposition  of  it  is  the  consciousness,  that  it 
would  '  cut  too  deep,'  and  condemn  inexorably  the  larger  part 
of  what  nominal  Christians  practice. 


LECTURE  XXXV. 

SECOND   TABLE.     (9th   and    loth    COMMANDMENTS.) 


SYLLABUS.  , 

1.  Wliat  is  the  general  scope  of  the  9th  Commandment,  and  what  the  duties  re- 
quired, and  sins  forbidden  under  it?     See 

Thornwell  on  Truth.       Pascal's  Provincial  Letters. 

2.  On  what  is  the  duty  of  speaking  truth  grounded,  and  how  does  its  practical 
importance  appear? 

3.  Define  the  sin  of  speaking  evil  of  ones'  neighbor,  and  argue. 

4.  Is  it  ever  lawful  to  deceive  ? 

5.  What  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  loth  Commandment,  and  what  are  the 
duties  required  and  sins  forbidden  under  it? 

6.  What  evidence  of  the  divine  mission  of  Moses  in  the  character  of  the  Deca- 
logue ? 

7.  What  doth  every  sin  deserve  at  God's  hands  ?     See 

Anselm,  Ctir  Dens  Homo,  pt.  i,  ch.  21.  See,  on  the  wliole,  Larger  Cat.,  Qu. 
143-152.  Ridgeley  (same  Qu).  Turrettin,  Loc.  xi,  Qu.  20-23,  and  Qu.  26. 
Green's  Lect.,  54-58.  Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  8,  g  47-51.  Hodges'  Theol., 
pt.  iii,  ch.  19,  §  13,  14.     Bp.  Hopkins  on  the  9th  and  loth  Commandments. 

AX/^E  hold  that  the  general  scope  of  the  Ninth  Command- 
ment is  to  enjoin    the    virtue    of  Truth,  as  represented, 
according  to  the  usual  method  of  the  Deca- 
Comm^an°dment  ^'"^^    logu^,  under  the    capital    duty   of  fidelity  in 
public  witness-bearing.    This  precept  "  requi- 
reth  the  maintaining  and  promoting   of  truth  between  man  and 
man,  and  of  our  own  and  our  neighbour's  good  name,  especially 
in  witness-bearing."     It  "  forbiddeth   whatsoever  is  prejudicial 
to  truth,  or  injurious  to  our  own  or  our  neighbour's  good  name." 
The  duty  of  veracity  is  founded  on  the  nature  and  import- 
ance  of   God's   will  enjoining  truth.     Truth 

of  Ve?adty.'^'  °^  ^""^    ^^y  ^e  said   to    be   the    using  of  signs  by 
which  we  express    or    assert   anything,  con- 
formably to  our  belief  of  the  real  state  of  the  thing  spoken  of. 
All  the  practical  concerns  of  man's  life  are  with  the  real 
state  of  things.     Fictitious  informations  are, 
cation  J  UsTfu?"'"'''"''   ^^  "s,  naught,  or  worse  than  naught.     They 
may  fatally  betray  us  into  mistake  ;  they  can- 
not be  the  grounds  of  any  beneficial  or  successful  action.     On 
the  real  state  of  the  markets  depends  the  merchant's  profits. 
On  the  real  power  of  the  medicine  depend  the  physician's  suc- 
cess and  the  sick   man's   restoration.     On  the    real  nature   of 
vegetable  laws    depends   the   reward    of  the  farmer's  toil.     In 
every  conceivable   concern    of  man    it  is  truth,  the  communi- 
cation which  is  in  accordance  with  reality,  that  is  useful.     Ac- 
cordingly our  Maker  has   endued   us   with  a  mental  appetite  of 
which  truth  is  the  natural   food.     The  statement  on  which  we 
cannot  rely  gives  no  pleasure.     True,  another  faculty  than  the 

419 


420  SYI.LABUS    AND    NOTES 

understanding,  the  fancy,  finds  its  appropriate  pleasure  in  fiction. 
But  here  also  a  tribute  is  paid  to  the  truth  ;  for  in  order  that  the 
fictitious  may  give  any  pleasure  to  the  fancy,  even,  it  must  be 
truth-like. 

Now  veracity  is  the  observance  of  truth  in  our  communi- 
cations. Its  importance  appears  from  the  fact 
DerivTd'^"^^"  '^"'^^  that  almost  all  man  knows  is  derived  from  com- 
munication. The  whole  value  of  the  state- 
ments we  receive  is  in  their  truth.  If  they  are  false  they  are 
naught,  or  worse  than  naught.  The  usefulness  of  communi- 
cated knowledge  to  us,  depends,  therefore,  wholly  on  our  confi- 
dence in  its  truth.  Every  lie  helps  to  destroy  that  confidence. 
Just  so  far  as  we  perceive  lies  prevail,  so  far  the  value  of  com- 
municated knowledge  to  us  is  destroyed.  Should  we  reach 
that  state  when  no  trust  could  be  put  in  the  veracity  of  any 
fellow-man,  all  such  knowledge  would,  to  us,  virtually,  cease  to 
exist.  But  to  what  a  state  would  this  reduce  us  ?  We  proudly 
call  the  brutes  dumb ;  indicating  that  it  is  man's  gift  of  speech 
mainly,  which  separates  us  from  beasts.  It  is  this  which  enables 
us  to  receive  facts  and  ideas  besides  our  own.  The  wise  teach 
the  ignorant.  The  skill  of  each  generation  does  not  die  with 
it ;  but  it  is  communicated  to  the  next.  Knowledge  is  handed 
down,  until  our  generation  finds  itself  endowed  with  the  accu- 
mulated experience  of  all  previous  ones.  It  is  this  which 
makes  our  civilization.  But  if  all  reliance  upon  communicated 
knowledge  is  destroyed,  we  are  reduced  to  a  state  of  savage 
ignorance,  but  little  above  that  of  the  higher  animals.  We 
should  know  nothing  but  what  we  had  ourselves  seen  and  expe- 
rienced ;  because  we  could  trust  nothing  else.  Education 
would  be  impossible  ;  for  how  can  knowledge  be  communicated 
when  truth  is  banished  ?  We  must  continue  to  exist  in  that  in- 
fantile ignorance  in  which  the  child  begins  life,  except  so  far  as 
our  own  unaided  efforts  might  instruct  us,  at  the  cost  of  suffer- 
ing and  perhaps  of  destruction.  The  advance  which  each  indi- 
vidual made  in  such  a  condition,  would  wholly  die  with  him  ; 
his  son  must  begin  life  as  he  did,  an  ignorant  savage,  and  run 
the  same  contracted  round  of  puny,  misdirected  progress,  and 
in  his  turn  die,  carrying  all  his  knowledge  to  the  grave  with 
him.  The  latest  generation  would  live  in  the  same  savage  igno- 
rance with  the  earliest.  Religion  would  be  as  impossible  as 
education  ;  and  all  its  blessings  and  consolations  equally  un- 
known ;  for  religion  cannot  exist  without  trust.  Each  one  of 
you  would  be  an  insulated,  helpless,  wretch,  more  completely 
deprived  of  society  than  the  gregarious  herds.  He  who  deals 
in  falsehood  does  what  in  him  lies  to  bring  his  race  to  this 
degraded  and  miserable  state.  If  all  men  should  be  false  like 
him,  and  in  all  their  communications,  this  state  would  be  actu- 
ally reached. 

It  may  be  shown  in  another  light  that  the  liar  is  the  enemy 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  421 

of  God  and  man,  by  considering  the  effect  of 

dence!  "^^'^"^  ^°"^'    ^^^    ^^^^    °"   °"^   mutual    confidence.      The 

intercourse  of  human  business  is  but  a  count- 
less series  of  implied  engagements.  Unless  we  can  trust  the 
fidelity  of  those  whom  we  must  employ,  co-operation  is  at  an 
end.  If  you  cannot  trust  the  postman  who  contracts  to  carry 
your  letters,  the  conductor  who  guides  the  vehicle  in  which,  you 
ride,  the  pilot  who  steers  your  ship,  the  agent  who  transacts 
your  business,  the  cook  who  engages  to  dress  your  food,  you 
can  neither  write,  nor  ride,  nor  sail,  nor  eat,  nor  conduct  any 
trade.  Government  would  be  at  an  end,  because  the  ruler 
could  not  trust  his  agents  and  officers,  and  his  power  would  be 
limited  to  his  own  presence.  In  short,  if  confidence  is  destroyed 
then  all  the  bands  which  unite  man  with  his  fellow  are  loosed  : 
each  man  must  struggle  on  unaided  by  his  fellows,  as  though  he 
were  the  sole  forlorn  remnant  of  a  perishing  race.  Confidence 
is  as  essential  also,  to  all  the  social  affections  which  shed  happi- 
ness on  the  heart,  as  to  the  utilities  of  our  outer  life.  It  is  the 
basis  of  friendship  and  love.  To  mistrust  is  to  despise.  To 
trust,  to  be  trusted  with  unshaken  faith,  is  the  charm  of  domes- 
tic love. 

Were  there  no  truth  then,  every  fellow-man  would  be  your 

enemy ;  you  would  be  insulated  from  your 
Affecdon.°°'^   "P'^™'    kind;  every    social    affection  would    take  its 

flight  from  the  earth.  Man  would  be  reduced 
to  a  solitary  miserable  savage,  "  whose  hand  would  be  against 
every  man  and  every  man's  hand  against  him."  Even  the  ani- 
mals must,  in  a  certain  sense,  keep  faith  with  each  other,  in  order 
to  make  their  gregariousness  possible.  Even  savages  must 
cultivate  fidelity  to  truth  within  some  narrow  limits ;  or  else  the 
extermination  of  their  scanty  existence  would  speedily  follow. 
Indeed  the  conditions  of  savage  society  are  sufficient  illus- 
trations of  my  conclusions;  for  when  you  examine  into  the 
causes  of  its  barbarism,  when  you  detect  wjjy  savages  are, 
compared  with  civilized  men,  few,  poor,  wretched,  insecure  and 
unfurnished  with  all  the  blessings  which  ameliorate  life  ;  you 
perceive  that  it  is  because  falsehood  and  unrighteousness  have 
made  trust,  mutual  aid,  and  instruction  almost  impossible  among 
them.  They  remain  such,  only  because  they  cannot  trust  each 
other.  Savagery  is  simply  sin;  and  most  notably  the  sin  of 
lying. 

Not  only  is  veracity  a  virtue,  but  truth  is,  in  a  certain  sense, 

the  condition  of  all  other  virtues.  Hence  it 
Morality.'      '''^^'''"''^'   is  that  in  many  places  of  the  Bible, truth  is 

almost  synonymous  with  righteousness.  The 
"  man  that  doeth  truth"  is  the  man  that  does  his  duty.  The 
godly  man  is  "  he  that  speaketh  the  truth  in  his  heart."  To 
"  execute  the  judgment  of  truth"  is  to  execute  righteous  judg- 
ment.    This  language  is  profoundly  accurate.     The  motive  of 


422  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

every  act  which  has  moral  quahty  must  be  a  reasonable  one ; 
and  truth,  as  we  know,  is  the  appointed  light  of  the  under- 
standing. I  mean  that  no  man  does  a  truly  virtuous  act  unless 
he  has  an  intelligent  reason  for  doing  it.  But  how  can  the  mind 
see  a  reason  unless  it  finds  it  in  some  truth  ?  Consider,  farther, 
that  all  the  inducements  to  right  actions  are  in  the  truth  ;  but 
all  the  inducements  to  wrong  acts  are  false.  Error  and  sin  are 
kindred  evils,  as  truth  and  holiness  are  handmaid  and  mistress. 
Truth  is  the  instrument  by  which  the  Holy  Ghost  sanctifies  the 
soul.  John  xvii  :  17.  Thus  we  find  its  most  exalted  value  in 
this,  that  it  is  the  means  of  redemption  for  a  ruined  world.  It 
is  as  beneficent  as  falsehood  is  mischievous.  The  one  is  our 
guide  to  heaven  ;  the  other  leads  to  hell. 

There  is  a  world  just  such  as  the  liar  would  make  this  : 
where  falsehood  reigns  and  where  confidence  is  unknown. 
There,  in  its  fiery  lake,  all  liars  have  their  part.  The  ruler  of 
this  world  is  he  who  "  was  a  liar  from  the  beginning  and  the 
Father  of  it."  There,  to  deceive  and  be  deceived  is  the  uni- 
versal rule,  and  therefore  mistrust  sits  brooding  over  every 
heart,  and  scowls  in  every  look.  Each  one  beholds  in  every 
other  an  object  of  fear  and  scorn,  and  feels  an  equal  scorn  for 
himself,  because  he  knows  himself  as  false  as  they.  In  the 
midst  of  myriads  each  suffering  heart  is  alone,  for  it  finds  no 
other  breast  on  which  it  can  repose.  Hostility  and  solitude 
separate  each  wretch  from  his  fellows,  and  the  only  society  is 
the  reciprocations  of  reproaches  and  injuries.  Hell  is  but  the 
complete  and  universal  reign  of  falsehood,  and  the  tendency  of 
every  lie  is  to  reduce  our  world  to  it. 

If  we  weigh  these  things  we  shall  see  the  grounds  of  that 
practical  truth,  that  the  virtue  of  veracity  is  the  foundation  of 
all  right  character.  Says  the  French  proverb.  Qui  dit  meji- 
tetir  dit  atissi  larron.  And  a  more  infallible  proverb  asserts  that 
"If  any  man  offend  not  in  word,  the  same  is  a  perfect  man."^ 
(Jas.  iii  :  2).  Hence  a  sacred  regard  for  truth  should  be  incul- 
cated on  the  young  especially ;  and  they  should  be  taught  to 
regard  lying  as  the  inlet  of  all  vice  and  corruption. 

In  thus  illustrating  the  usefulness  and  importance  of  the 
practice  of  veracity,  I  do  not  intend  to  rest  its  obligation  on 
that  ground.  These  facts  are  merely  subordinate  to  the  argu- 
ment. They  illustrate,  but  do  not  constitute,  the  obligation. 
And  even  for  this  use,  their  chief  value  is,  that  they  are  instan- 
ces under  a  general  truth,  leading  us  to  it.  That  proposition  is, 
that  truth  is  natural  to  man's  soul.  It  is  the  appointed /rt;^ /////;;/ 
animcB.  As  the  eye  craves  light,  so  the  mind  loves  the  truth. 
It  is  the  natural  instinct  of  the  mind,  undebauched  by  a  sinful 
experience,  to  credit  what  is  told  it  by  any  rational  •  fellow- 
creature  ;  and  it  requires  the  bitter  experience  of  deceptions 
often  repeated  to  curb  this  tendency.  While  we  are  limited  to 
the  sphere  of  philosophy  and  natural  theology  then,  we  find  the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  423 

obligation  to  truth  in  these  fundamental  facts,  which  reveal  the 
will  of  the  Creator  as  it  is  impressed  on  the  constitution  of  the 
soul.  "  To  those  therefore,  who  would  ask  :  Why  am  I  bound 
to  speak  the  truth  ?  I  would  briefly  answer :  Because  it  is  the 
law  of  our  nature :  it  is  the  fundamental  datum  of  conscience,  a 
command  of  God  impressed  upon  the  moral  structure  of  the 
soul."  It  follows  hence  that  the  obligation  is  universal,  and  is 
not  conditioned,  as  Paley  intimates,  on  any  implied  promise 
given  by  the  speaker.  When  we  pass  from  philosophy  to  rev- 
elation, we  find  a  still  broader  and  deeper  foundation  for  the 
obligation  to  truth,  in  the  nature  of  that  God  "  who  cannot  lie," 
who  is  the  "  God  of  truth,"  His  precepts  are  the  sure  and  suf- 
ficient rule  of  our  duty.  He  has  told  us  that  "  every  liar  is 
abomination  in  His  sight,"  and  has  required  us  to  speak  truth 
one  to  another. 

Every  right  habit  of  action  {consiietudd)  implies  a  right  dis- 
position (habitus)  of  will.  This  general  law  should  be  enough 
to  convince  us  of  another  great  fact,  which  is  too  often  over- 
looked in  ethical  discussions  of  this  duty  :  that  there  is  a  virtue 
of  truthfulness,  back  of  the  practice  of  veracity,  and  the  source 
of  it,  which  we  are  bound  to  possess.  This  is  the  love  of  truth 
for  its  own  sake.  The  virtue  in  its  last  analysis  is  not  a  habit 
qualifying  the  actions  and  words,  but  an  active  principle  quali- 
fying the  will  itself  Just  as  in  any  other  class  of  moral  acts, 
the  act  is  moral  simply  because  of  the  active  principle  which  is 
regulative  thereof  No  more  is  needed  than  to  state  the  truth. 
And  this  truth  dissolves,  at  a  touch,  the  vain  assertion  that  the 
intelligence  acts  by  its  necessary  logical  laws  and  therefore 
irresponsibly  to  the  conscience.  On  the  contary,  the  intelli- 
gence acts  always  under  strict  responsibility  to  the  conscience"; 
and  man  is  responsible  for  his  mental  beliefs. 

The  sin  of  slander,  or  backbiting,  where  the  assertions  of 

evil  in  our  neighbour  are  false,  is  understood. 
What  ?  ^^      ^^^  ^"^'    ^^^  malignity  is  great,  as  it  assails   him  in  a 

point  very  dear  to  him — his  good  name — and 
is  usually  attended  with  vile  adjuncts  of  secrecy  and  treachery. 
Jas.  iii  :  6,  7.  But  it  is  not  so  well  understood  that  it  is  often  a 
sin  of  evil  speaking  to  repeat  true  accusations  against  our 
neighbour.  There  are  times  when  the  cause  of  virtue  demands 
that  ill-conduct  shall  be  denounced.  And  when  such  occasions 
arise,  the  virtuous  man  will  not  be  afraid  to  speak  out.  But  it 
is  a  sin  against  our  erring  neighbour  to  give  unnecessary  cur- 
rency to  his  faults.  "  Charity  rejoiceth  not  in  iniquity."  The 
fact  that  our  neighbour  has  truly  sinned  does  not  place  him  out- 
side the  pale  of  charity,  nor  does  it  entitle  us  to  inflict  on  him 
any  unnecessary  injury  or  pain.  Moreover,  the  recital  of  evil, 
true  or  false,  has  a  natural  tendency  to  familiarize  the  soul  with 
it,  to  defile  the  memory  and  imagination,  and  to  habituate  the 
mind  and  conscience  to  wrong.     It  is,  especially  to  the  young, 


424  SYLLABUS   AND    NOTES 

a  real  misfortune  to  have  to  hear  of  that  which  is  morally  foul. 
This  mischief  should  never  be  causelessly  wrought  by  detailing 
sins,  no  matter  how  true,  without  necessity. 

Many  Christian   moralists  have  held  that  there  are   inten- 
4.  Are   all   Decep-    tional  deceptions  which  are   not  breaches  of 
tions  Lies  ?    Negative    the  ninth  commandment,  and    are   innocent 
Argument.  [^  God's   sight.     They  describe   these,  as  the 

cases  where  the  person  deceived  had  no  right  to  know  ;  and 
where  the  result  of  the  deception  was  righteous  and  beneficial; 
as  when  a  robber  or  murder  is  misled  away  from  his  victim  by 
an  innocent  deception  ;  or  where  a  defensive  army  deceives  an 
invader  by  strategems.  Their  arguments  are  chiefly  these  ; 
that  the  parties  deceived,  in  such  cases,  being  engaged  in 
a  wicked  design,  have  no  right  to  the  benefits  of  veracity  as 
between  man  and  man  :  That  the  best  men,  as  Joshua,  Wash- 
incrton,  &c.,  when  commanders  of  armies,  made  adroit  use  of 
stratagems ;  and  the  common  conscience  of  mankind  approves, 
and  would  count  it  morbid  conscience  and  insane  quixotr}^',  to 
refuse  such  means  of  defence :  That  many  instances  are 
recorded,  of  Bible  saints  as  Abraham,  Moses,  Joshua,  &c.,  who 
prosperously  employed  concealment  and  stratagems,  (see  for 
instance,  Joshua  viii  :  3,  &c.,)  and  that  there  are  even  cases  in 
which  God  or  Christ  seems  to  do  the  same,  as  in  the  assumption 
of  a  human  body.  Gen.  xviii  :  2.  in  the  walk  to  Emmaus,  Luke 
xxiv  :  28.  They  add,  also,  that  the  consistent  enforcement  of 
the  opposite  doctrine  would  many  times  be  suicidal  and  pre- 
posterous. 

There  are  however,  those  who  hold  that  absolutely  "  no  lie 

is  of  the  truth."  They  admit  indeed,  that  it 
j^  Affirmative    Argu-    j^  ^  man's  privilege,  where   no  right  exists  to 

demand  information  of  him,  to  keep  silence, 
or  use  concealment.  But  they  assert  that,  if  he  employs  any 
signs  by  which  it  is  usually  understood  information  is  conveyed, 
he  must  employ  them  absolutely  according  to  reality ;  and  that 
in  no  case  can  he  intentionally  produce  a  deception,  without 
the  sin  of  lying.  They  argue  in  general,  that  the  opposite 
license  proceeds  upon  a  utilitarian  theory  of  obligation.  But 
this  theory  is  false,  and  as  no  finite  mind  can  correctly  judge 
the  whole  utility  or  hurtfulness  of  a  given  declaration  in  its 
ulterior  consequences,  no  practical  basis  or  rule  of  obligation 
would  be  left  at  all  To  the  instances  of  deception  in  war,  by 
great  patriots,  and  their  approval  by  the  world,  they  reply,  that 
good  men  are  imperfect,  and  commit  errors  ;  and  that  the  pub- 
lic conscience  is  unhealthy.  To  the  instances  of  Bible-saints, 
they  say  with  justice,  that  often  the  errors  of  good  men  are 
recorded  for  our  instruction,  when  they  are  by  no  means  sanc- 
tioned. As  to  the  instances  claimed,  from  the  acts  of  the  Mes- 
siah, concealment  is  not  deception  ;  His  appearance  in  human 
form,  without  at  first  disclosing  His  divinity,  was  not  a  suggestio 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  42$ 

falsi,  but  only  a  concealment  of  His  nature  until  the  suitable 
time.  So,  His  seeming  to  design  a  journey  farther  than 
Emmaus  was  a  mere  question  propounded  to  the  disciples. 
As  to  the  inconveniences  of  absolute  truth,  sometimes  extreme, 
they  point  to  the  obligations  laid  upon  the  martyrs,  and  remind 
us,  that  it  is  no  rare  thing  for  Christ  to  require  of  us  obedience 
rather  than  life.  In  fine,  they  urge  that  on  any  other  ground 
than  theirs,  no  tenable  or  consistent  rule  remains ;  and  we  have 
a  mere  '  point  of  honour '  requiring  us  to  speak  truth  under  cer- 
tain  contingencies,  instead  of  a  fixed  rule  of  moral  obligation. 

It  must  be  confessed,  that  the  reasons  of  the  latter  party 
are  more  honourable  to  the  divine  authority, 
and  more  elevating  and  safe,  than  those  of 
the  former.  The  replies  given  to  a  part  of  their  arguments  are 
also  valid.  I  would  add  that  it  is  of  perilous  tendency  and  obvi- 
ously erroneous,  to  represent  one's  obligation  to  speak  truth  as 
only  correlated  to  the  hearer's  right  to  receive  a  true  communi- 
cation. Man  could  never  be  safely  trusted  to  judge  for  himself 
when  his  fellow  man  had  that  right.  Indeed,  on  that  basis, 
human  declarations  v.'ould  be  practically  worthless  ;  for  the 
hearer  must  always  remember  that  the  speaker's  word  can  only 
be  accepted  as  conveying  truth,  provided  he  secretly  judges  the 
hearer  to  be  entitled  to  it ;  and  of  this  proviso  there  can  be  no 
assurance  not  encumbered  with  the  same  fatal  condition. 
Again,  it  is  very  far  from  being  a  general  truth,  that  our  duties 
are  only  corelated  to  the  rights  of  their  objects.  Thus,  I 
may  be  under  a  high  obligation  (to  God)  to  bestow  alms  on  my 
undeserving  enemy.  And  this  suggests  the  still  stronger 
answer;  that  God,  and  not  the  hearer,  is  the  true  object  on 
whom  any  duty  of  veracity  terminates.  God  always  has  a  right 
to  expect  truth  of  me,  however  unworthy  the  person  to  whom  I 
speak. 

Yet  the  sober  mind  cannot  but  feel  that  there  is  an  extreme, 
to  which  the  higher  view  cannot  be  pushed.  I  presume  that  no 
man  would  feel  himself  guilty  for  deceiving  a  mad  dog  in  order 
to  destroy  him,  or  for  m.isleading  an  assassin  from  his  victim, 
when  helpless  otherwise,  to  prevent  murder.  But  it  is  more  im- 
portant to  say,  that,  in  at  least  a  few  cases,  as  in  Joshua  viii  :  2, 
God  Himself  authorized  a  designed  deception  for  the  purpose 
of  punishing  the  guilty.  As  His  authorizing  Joshua  to  exter- 
minate the  Amorites  proves  that  all  killing  is  not  murder,  so, 
does  not  His  authorizing  him  to  deceive  them  prove  that  all 
■deception  is  not  lying?  Hence,  I  would  offer,  with  diffidence, 
another  statement  of  the  matter,  which  may  be  found  to  con- 
tain the  reconciliation  of  the  difficulty.  Under  what  circum- 
stances is  killing  by  man  no  murder  ?  Is  not  human  life  sacred, 
and  the  property  of  the  Maker  alone  ?  The  law  answers :  Man 
may  kill,  when  the  guilty  life  is  forfeited  to  God,  and  He  author- 
izes man  to  destroy  it,  as   His  agent.     So,  I  conceive,  extreme 


426  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

purposes  of  aggression,  unjust  and  malignant,  and  aiming  at 
our  very  existence,  constitute  a  forfeiture  of  rights  for  the 
guilty  assailant.  During  the  dominancy  of  his  active  malice, 
they  dehumanize  him  as  to  his  intended  victim :  his  life  is  for- 
feited to  the  superior  right  of  self-defence.  That  right  emerges, 
and  the  man  attacked  innocently  slays  the  assailant.  By  the 
rule  that  the  greater  includes  the  less,  may  he  not  also  deceive 
him  for  a  righteous  purpose  ?  One  advantage  of  this  view  is, 
that  it  gives  this  right  of  deception  only  in  the  extreme  case, 
where  life  is  maliciously  assailed.  And  the  argument  is  not  the 
same  we  discarded,  which  made  the  duty  of  veracity  correlative 
only  to  the  hearer's  right  to  truth.  For  my  plea  is  ;  this  assail- 
ant not  only  has  no  right  to  it,  he  is  out  of  the  category  of 
beings  to  whom  truth  is  relevant,  for  the  time.  He  is  not  a 
rational  man,  but  a  brute.  It  may  be  asked  with  much  force : 
has  this  outlaw  for  the  time  being,  a  right  to  truth,  after  he  has 
forfeited  the  right  to  existence  ?  Does  not  the  greater  forfeiture 
include  the  less  ?  Is  he  not,  pro  tempore,  in  the  category  of  a 
beast  of  prey  ?  But  the  moment  he  is  disabled  from  aggres- 
sion, or  turns  to  a  better  mind,  his  rights  to  truth  revive,  as  do 
his  claims  on  our  charity  and  forbearance.  Hence,  while  the 
good  man  will  righteously  deceive  his  invading  enemy  with 
stratagems,  the  moment  a  flag  of  truce  appears,  or  his  enemy  is 
disabled  and  captured,  he  is  bound  to  act  with  as  perfect  sin- 
cerity as  towards  his  bosom  friend.  I  would  add,  in  guarding 
this  concession,  that  if  an  innocent  man  makes  a  vow,  promise,  or 
engagement  to  his  unrighteous  assailant,  under  whatever  violent 
threat,  or  other  inducement,  he  is  bound,  to  the  faithful  perform- 
ance of  that  engagement,  unless  the  thing  promised  is  sin  per 
se.  For  the  engagement  was  voluntary ;  he  had  the  option  of 
choosing  to  make  it  or  endure  the  threatened  evil.  The  good 
man  is  one  who  "  sweareth  to  his  own  hurt,  and  changeth  not." 
Ps.  XV  :  4. 

Rome,  as  we  saw,  having  suppressed  the  2nd  Command- 
ment, divides  the  loth  in  order  to  make  out 
xo?hCotmaSiSl°r'  the  requisite  number.  Her  9th  Command- 
ment  is,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 
bor's house ;"  and  her  loth,  "  Neither  shalt  thou  desire  his 
wife,"  &c.  Her  plea  is,  that  houses  are  typical  of  property ; 
and  wives  of  those  things  which  excite  sensual  desire.  The 
9th  Commandment,  therefore  forbids  covetousness  ;  the  loth, 
lust  and  appetite.  But  unfortunately,  the  "  ox  and  ass,"  obvious 
"property"  are  in  the  latter  part;  and  in  Deut.  v  :  21,  where 
Moses  recites  the  Decalogue  literally,  he  puts  the  wife  first,  and 
the  property  second.  There  is  no  basis  for  the  distinction. 
For  what  is  property  craved  by  sinners  ?  Only  for  its  instru- 
mentality to  satisfy  some  appetite  or  sensual  desire.  The 
general  unity  of  the  subject,  besides,  proves  that  it  was  one 
command. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  42/ 

It  may  be  said,  in  brief,  that  this  command  finds  the  key- 
note of  its  exposition  in  the  text :    "  Keep 
^^    ^°^^'  thy  heart  with  all  diligence  ;  for  out  of  it  are 

the  issues  of  life."  The  five  commands  of  the  second  table  cut 
off  the  streams  of  transgression ;  this  deals  with  the  fountain 
head.  The  others  forbid  wrong  volitions ;  this  forbids  concu- 
piscence, as  tending  thereto.  In  the  iQth  Commandment,  then, 
we  have  the  crowning  spirituality  of  the  Law ;  thus  making  it 
complete,  and  every  way  worthy  of  God,  and  adapted  to  man 
as  a  rational  free  agent. 

In  closing  this  subject  I   would  offer  two  remarks.     The 
first  is  upon   the  admirable  comprehension, 

6.  Decalogue  only    ^isdom,  and  method  of  the  Decalogue.     We 

irom  God.  '  .  .  ° 

have  here  ten  smiple  and  brief  precepts,  each 
one  commending  itself  to  the  natural  conscience  of  the  most 
unlearned,  simple  in  word,  few  in  number,  unostentatious  in 
arrangement.  When  we  first  look  at  them,  we  are  inclined  to 
think  that,  while  they  are  very  true  and  good,  there  is  nothing 
very  wonderful ;  that  they  are  obvious  things  which  any  good 
man  might  utter,  aud  to  a  much  greater  number  than  ten.  But 
when  we  examine  them  in  detail,  we  find  that  they  are  the 
heads  of  all  the  branches  of  man's  duty,  arranged  with  the 
most  logical  order,  presenting  nothing  superfluous,  and  yet, 
with  all  their  brevity,  omitting  nothing  of  all  the  vast  circle  of 
human  duty!  How  clear  their  purity  and  justice!  How 
amazing  their  comprehension !  What  completeness !  Let 
human  ingenuity  hunt  out  some  branch  of  human  duty  which  is 
omitted.  It  cannot.  In  these  ten  words,  we  have  a  system  of 
morality  more  wise  and  complete  than  human  wisdom  ever  de- 
vised. Now,  we  ask,  whence  did  Moses  get  these  ten  words  ? 
A  man  of  an  unlearned  and  pastoral  race,  educated  in  the 
learned  follies  of  Egypt,  whose  theology  and  morals,  as  they 
are  revealed  to  us  by  Herodotus  and  the  modern  decypherers  of 
their  monuments,  show  an  impurity  and  puerility  utterly  oppo- 
site to  the  Bible,  goes  into  a  waste  desert,  and  after  forty  years, 
comes  forth  with  this  strangely  wise  and  perfect  law  !  Whence 
did  he  get  it?  There  is  but  one  rational  account — that  given 
by  the  Bible — that  it  was  written  for  him  by  the  finger  of  God. 
Unless  Moses  was  an  inspired  man,  then  he  has  produced  a 
miracle  of  wisdom  more  incredible  than  all  the  difficulties  of 
inspiration. 

Our   Catechism,  while   recognizing  the   greater  gravity  of 
some  sins    than    others,  by    reason   of  their 

7.  What  does  every    aggravations,    teaches  us   that,   "Every   sin 

bin  Deserve.  ot>  ,     ^      ,,  1       1     •       1  • 

deserveth  God  s  wrath  and  curse,  both  in  this 

life  and  that  which  is  to  come."     The  exceeding  demerit  of  sin, 

and  its  desert  of  eternal  and  grievous  punishment  is  a  doctrine 

which  meets  with  obstinate  resistance  from  sinners.     It  is  urged 

that  to  make  the  desert   of  any   sin   such  is  to   revive  the  old: 


428  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Stoic  absurdity,  of  the  equality  of  all  sins  ;  for  if  the  lesser  sin 
is  punished  eternally,  and  so  infinitely,  the  greater  cannot  be 
punished  more.  The  answer  is,  that  infinities  are  by  no  means 
all  equal ;  as  we  have  shown. 

To  clear  this  awful  truth  of  the  desert  of  sin,  from  the 
cavils  of  unbelief,  I  would  observe,  first,  that  sinful  men  are  in 
a  most  unlikely  attitude  to  judge  correctly  between  themselves 
and  God,  in  this  matter.  They  naturally  desire  to  break  the 
law.  Our  emotions  always  blind  the  judgment  to  the  objects 
which  are  opposed  to  their  current.  They  are  condemned  by 
the  law  of  God,  which  fact  produces  a  natural  jealousy  of  it. 
They  have  their  moral  judgments  brutified  by  the  universal 
habitude  and  example  of  sinning,  amidst  which  they  live.  It 
would  be  almost  a  miracle,  if  there  were  not,  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, a  perversion  of  the  moral  judgments  here. 

But  affirmatively  the  ill-desert  of  sin  is  infinite,  because  of 

the    excellence,    universality,    and    practical 

Grounds.  ^^j^^  ^^  ^j^^   j^^^  broken  by  it.     Because  of 

the  natural  mischievousness  of  sin  to  the  sinner  himself ;  as  was 
illustrated  when  I  spoke  of  Adam's  first  transgression.  Because 
of  the  Majesty  and  perfections  of  the  Law-giver  assailed  by 
transgression.  Because  sin  is  committed  against  mercies  and 
blessings  so  great.  Because  it  violates  so  perfect  a  title  to  our 
services,  that  of  creation  out  of  nothing.  And  last,  because  it 
is  so  continually  multiplied  by  transgressions. 

Men  deny  the  demerit  and  guilt  of  sin,' because  they  are  so 
in  the  habit  of  attempting  to  measure  transgression  as  the  civil 
magistrate  does,  insulated  from  all  its  attendants  and  sequels. 
Does  the  court,  for  instance,  indict  a  man  for  murder  ?  The 
act  is  considered  by  itself,  and  the  court  does  not  concern  itself 
with  antecedent  character,  or  with  results,  save  as  they  throw 
light  on  the  intention  or  evidence.  Now  men  mislead  them- 
selves by  these  examples,  as  though  an  omniscient  God  could, 
or  would  judge  sins  against  himself  in  this  partial,  fragmentary 
way.  In  denying  the  gravity  of  sin  against  God,  they  seem  to 
have  before  them  some  such  case  as  this  :  Here  is  one  actual  sin 
committed  by  a  man,  which  God  is  to  judge,  as  expressive  of 
no  moral  state  preexisting  in  the  man  ;  as  destined  to  breed  no 
repetitions,  as  exercising  no  influence  to  form  a  vicious  habit  in 
the  agent's  soul,  and  as  carrying  no  consequence  into  his  own 
immortal  character  or  those  of  his  fellows.  The  caviller  seems 
to  think  the  question  is  :  Has  God  declared  a  single  act,  thus 
insulated,  by  itself  worthy  of  eternal  penalty?  I  reply,  that 
neither  the  caviller  nor  I  know  anything  of  that  question.  For 
in  fact,  God  can  never  have  such  a  case  to  judge,  because  it 
can  never  arise.  Every  case  which  He  has  to  judge  is  that  of 
a  sinner,  not  of  a  sin  :  and  in  weighing  any  one  act,  the  omnis- 
cient mind  will,  of  course,  look  at  it  as  it  really  occurs,  with  all 
its  antecedents,  connections,  and  consequences.     Is  it  an  oath  ? 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  429 

God  sees  in  it,  first,  a  specific  breach  of  the  3d  Commandment ; 
then,  an  expression  of  pre-existent  sentiments  of  wilfulness, 
irreverence,  levity  or  malice,  in  the  profane  man  :  then  thirdly, 
an  evil  influence  on  spectators,  to  be  propagated,  unless  grace 
intervene,  forever  :  fourth,  a  confirming  influence,  intensifying 
the  wicked  temper  and  habit ;  and  last,  a  natural  tendency 
involving  a  series  of  increasing  profanities  forever.  In  a  word, 
God,  as  final  and  omniscient  judge,  has  to  judge  each  sinner  as 
a  concrete  whole,  and  each  transgression  as  index,  part,  and 
cause,  as  well  as  fruit,  of  a  disease  of  sin,  a  deadly,  spiritual  eat-, 
ing  cancer,  whose  tendency  is  to  involve  an  immense  evil,  eternal 
death.  Thus  judged,  sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  and  deserves  an 
eternal  penalty.  One  reason  why  God  punishes  forever  is,  that 
the  culprit  sins  forever.  God's  point  of  view  is,  that  this  ever-^ 
lasting  series  of  sins  is  the  fruit  of  the  first  rebellion. 


LECTURE  XXXVI. 

THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  the  Scriptural  uses  of  the  terms  ^1'^3  and  Sm^/^kt/?  What  the 
theological  uses  of  the  terms,  'Covenant  of  •  ;  Redemption,'  'Covenant 
of  Grace'?     See 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  7.  Sh.  Cat.,  Qu.  20.  Larger  Cat.,  Qu.,  31.  Lexicons, 
sud  vocibiis.  Sampson  on  Heb.,  ix  ;  16.  Southern  Presb.  Rev.,  Jan.,  1876. 
Hodge's  Theol.,  Vol.  ii,  ch.  2  of  pt.  ii.  Hill's  Div.,  bk.  v,  ch.  5,  \  i.  Tur- 
rettin,  Loc.  xii,  Qu.  I.     Dick.   Lect.  48. 

2.  Prove  the  existence  of  a  Covenant  of  Redemption.  How  related  to  the  Cov- 
enant of  Grace,  and  the  L^iaOijKaL?     See 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xii,  Qu.  2.     Dick,  Lect.  48.     Hodge  as  above.     Witsius,  bk. 
ii,  ch.  2. 
-  3.  Who  are  the  original  parties  to  the  Covenant  of  Redemption  ?     Their  motives  ? 
for  whom  is  Christ  surety  ?     See  same  authorities. 

4.  What  the  conditions  stipulated  between  the  Parties  ?  Is  any  condition  required 
of  the  believer  ?     What  ?     Faith  ?  or  also  repentance  ? 

Dick,  Lect.  48,  49.     Hodge  as  above.     Turrettin,  Qu.  3  and  2. 

5.  What  is  the  date  and  duration  of  the  Covenant  ?  Explain,  then,  the  terms- 
"new"  and  "old"  in  Heb.  viii  :  8,  or  xii  :  24. 

Turrettin  and  Dick  as  above.  Hodge,  Com.  on  I  Cor.  xv  :  24-28.  See,  on. 
the  whole,  Witsius,  bk.  ii,  ch.  2,  3. 

/^OD  having  created  man  upright,  and  he  having  sought  out 
^-^      many    iiwentions,    and    thus     fallen   into    sin ;  our    next 

inquiry  must  be  into  the  remedy  which  God's 
Go^d'^ReTec^y"'''""    love  and    mercy    found    for   this    fall.     This 

remedy,  in  its  exhibition,  was  of  course  sub- 
sequent to  the  ruin ;  but  when  we  consider  it  in  its  inception  in 
the  Divine  mind,  we  must  go  back  into  the  recesses  of  a  past 
eternity.  God  ever  foreknew  all  things  ;  and  all  His  works,, 
unto  the  end,  are  according  to  His  original,  eternal  plan.  Con- 
ceiving of  God's  eternal  decree  then  in  parts,  (the  only  mode 


43^  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  conception  of  it  competent  to  our  finite  minds,)  we  must 
consider  that  part  of  His  plan  formed  from  eternity,  which  was 
imphed  in  that  other  part  of  the  same  plan  whereby  He  pur- 
posed to  permit  man's  fall  and  ruin.  This  remedial  part  of 
God's  decree  is  the  thing  which  the  more  recent  Calvinistic 
divines  term  the  Covenant  of  Grace — e.  g.,  Dick. 

When  it  is  thus   considered,  as  a  part  of  the  Decree,  we 

^,     .          .  are  enabled  to  condense  much  of  the  discus- 

Identical   with    De-       •  1  r  •         -i-        •  1       ^1 

cree.  sion    and  prooi   concerning  it,   given  by  the 

theologians  ;  and  to  say  in  brief:  that  being 
such,  the  Covenant  of  Grace  must  of  course  possess  those  gen- 
eral properties  which  we  asserted  of  the  Decree ;  and  for  the 
same  reasons,  viz.,  eternity,  immutability,  wisdom,  freeness, 
absoluteness,  graciousness. 

When  we  come  to  the  Scriptures,  we  find  a  frequent  use 
of  the  words  rendered  in  our  English  version,  '  Covenant,'  '  Tes- 
tament,' applied  to  transactions  of  God  with  men,  through 
their  Surety,  Jesus  Christ.  Before  we  can  proceed  farther  in 
the  connected  evolution  of  the  subject,  the  proper  meaning  of 

these  terms  must  be  examined  ;  ^"'12)  ocad^-^x/j.     The  former 

of  these  words,  both  by  its  etymology  and  usage,  is  shown 
to  mean  *  covenant,'  or  '  agreement ;  '  being  often  used  to 
express  theologically,  God's  covenants  with  man,  and  naturally, 
compacts  between  individuals.  There  are  also  cases  in  which 
it  means  an  arrangement  or  disposition  of  matters  determined 
on.  Exod.  xxxiv  :  28  ;  Jer.  xxxiii  :  20.  It  must  be  remarked, 
that  the  word  currently  used  by  the  Sept.  to  render  this,  is 
oiaiJrf/:/].  This  fact  would  naturally  lead  us  to  attribute  to  it  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  same  meaning  of  disposition  or  cove- 
nant. It  is  admitted  that  the  meaning  so  often  given  to  it  by 
our  English  version  of  '  testament,'  (will,)  is  the  primary  ety- 
mological meaning  in  classic  Greek.  But  there  is  only  one  case, 
(Heb.  ix  :  16,)  where  that  meaning  is  supportable.  Thus, 
when  Christ  is  said  by  the  English  version  to  be  "  a  surety  of  a 
better  testament,"  (Heb.  vii  :  22,)  there  is  an  obvious  incon- 
gruity between  the  office  and  the  document.  Wills  do  not 
have  sureties.  When  the  same  version  says,  (i  Cor.  xi  :  25,)- 
"  This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament,"  the  words,  y-aivr^z, 
oiddyfATiz^  imply  the  Old,  to  which  the  character  of  a  testament 
is  inappropriate.  But  in  Heb.  ix  :  16,  17,  the  meaning  of"  Tes- 
tament" is  to  be  retained,  (against  McKnight,  Hill  and  others.) 
For,  if  their  rendering  be  attempted,  making  the  passage  allusive 
to  a  covenant  ratified  by  an  animal  sacrifice,  three  insuperable 
critical  difficulties  arise,  that  if  dco.&rjxrj  means  covenant, 
bcad-kfitvov  should  mean  the  "  covenanter,"  i.  e.,  God  the  Father, 
(Christ  being  the  ratifying  sacrifice.)  But  the  Father  did  not 
die  ;  that  vbxoo:;  cannot  be  properly  used  to  describe  dead  ani- 
mals sacrificed  :  and  that  the  passage  would  then  be  made  to 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  43 1 

assert  too  much  :  for  it  is  not  universally  true,  that  compacts 
were  only  of  force  anciently,  after  the  death  of  a  sacrifice  to 
solemnize  them.  (See  Sampson's  Com.  in  loco?)  Hence  we 
assert  that  the  statement  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  is  substan- 
tially correct,  that  the  Scripture  does  set  forth  the  dispensa- 
tion of  God's  grace  to  man  under  the  idea  of  "  a  testament;  " 
though  perhaps  not  "  often,"  as  is  said  there.  Their  assertion 
refers  to  the  English  version. 

The  terms  are  used  then,  in  their  general  or  theological 
sense,  ist,  by  Theologians,  and  probably  by  Scripture,  (Hos. 
vi  :  7,)  for  the  Covenant  of  works  with  Adam.  2nd,  for  the 
Abrahamic  dispensation.  3rd,  for  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
4th,  for  the  new  or  Christian  dispensation.  (Not  covenants, 
but  dispensations ;  for  we  shall  show  that  there  is  only  one  cov- 
enant, besides  that  of  works.) 

If  there  is  any  gospel  remedy  for  sin,  then  there  must  have 
been,  from  eternity,  such  a  remedial  plan  in 
a&ve''nanlf '^''''  the  Divine  mind.  But  the  question  is,  was 
this  part  of  the  eternal  decree,  in  any  proper 
sense  a  covenant  ?  Has  it  properly  the  form  of  an  eternal 
compact  between  persons  of  the  Trinity?  This  is  purely  a 
question  of  Revelation,  to  be  decided  not  so  much  by  finding 
the  words,  covenant,  compact,  agreement,  applied  to  it  in  Scrip- 
ture, as  the  substance  of  the  thing  asserted.  Calvinists  hold 
that  in  the  one,  eternal  decree  of  the  Trinity,  which  is  one  in 
essence  and  attributes,  and  harmonious  in  will  and  thought, 
this  remedial  purpose  (or  part  of  the  plan)  has  from  eternity 
held  the  form  of  a  concert  or  agreement  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  for  the  redemption  of  believers.  But  here  we 
must .  carefully  avoid  confusing  the  subject,  by  giving  to  this 
immanent  transaction  of  the  Trinity  all  the  technical  features 
of  a  "  covenant."  Thus  some  divines  have  erred,  especially  of 
the  Cocceian  school.  Obviously,  we  must  not  conceive  of  it,  as 
though  the  one  party  produced  in  the  other  a  willingness  to  do 
what  he  had  not  previously  purposed,  by  exhibiting  a  certain 
reward  or  compensation,  not*  before  exhibited.  Nor  must  we 
conceive  that  the  second  party  produces,  by  his  fulfilment  of 
the  conditions,  a  fixed  purpose  to  bestow  the  given  compensa- 
tion, the  purpose  to  do  so  having  been  hitherto  uncertain. 
Nor,  in  a  word,  that  there  is  any  contingency  on  either  hand, 
holding  the  purposes  of  either  party  suspended  in  doubt  on 
the  promisings  or  doings  of  the  other  party.  But  it  has  always 
been  certain  from  eternity,  that  the  conditions  would  be  per- 
formed ;  and  the  consequent  reward  would  be  bestowed, 
because  there  has  always  been  an  ineffable  and  perfect  accord 
in  the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  on  those  points  :  an  accord  pos- 
sessing all  the  absoluteness  of  the  other  parts  of  the  decree. 
Our  limited  understandings,  of  course,  cannot  fully  understand 
the  actings  of  the   divine,  triune  spirit ;  seeing  its   constitution 


432  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

is  inscrutable  to  us.  This  is  perhaps  as  near  as  we,  can  come 
to  the  conception  designed  to  be  given  us. 

The  Scriptural  proof  of  such  an  immanent,  eternal  trans- 
Scriptural  Proofs  of  action  between  the  Father  and  Son,  is  the 
a  Covenant  of  Re-  following :  First.  Inferentially,  Eternal  life 
demption.  ^y^g  j^q^-  o^ily  purposed   to  be  bestowed,  but, 

"  promised,  before  the  world  began  " — Tit.  i  :  2.  To  whom  ? 
for  man  did  not  yet  exist  ?  To  Christ,  for  believers.  Compare 
Eph.  i  :  4.  Again :  Christ  is  clearly  implied  to  bear  a  federal 
relationship  ;  as  in  i  Cor.  xv  :  22,  47,45  ;  Rom.  v  :  17,  18.  Our 
first  federal  head  entered  into  covenant  on  our  behalf;  we  infer 
that  our  second  has  ;  He  would  else  not  fulfill  the  idea  of  a  fed- 
eral person  at  all.  Again  :  Christ  is  expressly  called  the  Surety 
of  a  oca&r^xTj.  Heb.  vii  ;  22.  But  a  surety  is  one  who  volun- 
tarily enters  under  the  obligations  of  a  compact  on  behalf  of 
anoiher.  Many  other  passages  would  ground  a  similar  infer- 
ence ;  the  student  has  now  had  sufficient  examples  how  to  use 
them.  Note  all  conditional  promises :  To  believers,  to  Christ. 
These  are  of  nature  of  covenants. 

Second.  Many  express  passages  describe  (not  always  in 
the  use  of  word  covenant  et  similia,  but  in  substance)  such  an 
eternal  agreement.  See  Is.  xlii  :  6,  xlix  :  8  ;  Mai.  iii  :  i  ;  espe- 
cially Ps.  xl  :  7,  8,  as  quoted  by  Heb,  x  ;  5.  This  covenant  of 
Christ  is  unfolded  by  other  Scriptures  under  the  specific  heads 
of  His  three  offices — e.  g.,  Prophetic.  Is.  Ixi  :  i,  2.  Priestly. 
Isaiah,  liii  :  lo,  ii  ;  Ps.  ex  :  4  ;  John,  x  :  17,  18.  Kingly.  Ps. 
ii :  7,  8,  ex  :  6  ;  Luke,  xxii  :  29,  &c.  Zech.  vi :  13.  Witsius 
somewhat  fancifully  argues  also,  that  Christ's  partaking  of  the 
Sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament  could  only  have  been  to  seal 
His  covenant  of  redemption  with  His  Father. 

2.  I  hold  that  this  subject  cannot  be  treated  intelligibly 
without  distinguishing  the  covenant  existing  from  eternity 
between  the  Father  and  Son,  from  that  Gospel  promise  of  sal- 
vation on  terms  of  true  faith  offered  to  sinners  through  Christ. 
Many  of  our  divines  have  agreed  to  retain  this  distinction,  and 
to  name  the  former  covenant,  for  convenience'  sake,  the  "  Cov- 
enant of  Redemption,"  while  they  call  the  Gospel  promise  to 
believers,  "  Covenant  of  Grace."  To  these  I  heartily  accede. 
The  Covenant  of  Redemption  between  the  Father  and  Son,  I 
hold  to  be  the  real  covenant  transaction,  being  a  free  and 
optional  compact  between  two  equals,  containing  a  stipulation 
which  turns  on  a  proper,  causative  condition,  and  bearing  no 
relation  to  time,  as  it  includes  no  mutable  contingency  or  con- 
dition dependent  on  the  uncertain  will  of  creatures.  The  Cov- 
enant of  Grace  (so  called)  is  a  dispensation  of  promise  to  man,, 
arising  out  of  and  dependent  on  the  Covenant  of  Redemption. 
Dr.  John  Dick  seems  to  use  the  phrase  Covenant  of  Grace,  in  a 
sense  comprehensive  of  both  transactions,  and  to  assert  that 
there  is  no  use  for  the  distinction.     Turrettin,  Witsius,  and  our 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  433 

Confession  employ  the  same  phrase  in  the  sense  of  the  Gospel 
promise  to  believing  sinners,  made  through  Christ  as  surety. 
See  Confession  ch.  vii  :  §  3  ;  Shorter  Catechism  qu.  20.  It  is 
true  that  the  Larger  Catechism,  qn.  31,  verges  nearer  to  the  dis- 
tinction and  the  recognition  of  a  prior  Covenant  of  Redemp- 
tion with  Christ  saying  :  **  This  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made 
with  Christ  as  the  second  Adam,  and  in  Him,  &c." 

Now,  I  repeat,  the  distinction  which  Dick  repudiates,  and 
which  so  many  others  obscure,  is  essential.  It  is  true  that  the 
covenant  with  believing  men  is  the  consequence  and  sequel  of 
that  eternally  made  with  Christ ;  and  that  the  promises  published 
in  the  former  are  the  fruit  of  Christ's  action  in  fulfilling  the 
latter.  In  that  sense  the  transactions  are  intimately  connected. 
But  the  value  and  necessity  of  the  distinction  are  easily 
evinced,  against  Dr.  Dick,  by  such  questions  as  these :  Is 
Christ  a  party  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace  ?  Or  is  man  the  party 
of  the  second  part  ?  Here  Dr.  Dick  must  be  fatally  embar- 
rassed. In  the  Covenant  of  Grace  with  man,  Christ  is  not  party, 
but  surety  —  True:  But  unless  there  is  some  party  to  the 
transaction  less  mutable,  feeble  and  guilty  than  believing  sin- 
ners, man's  prospect  of  deliverance  is  gloomy  indeed  !  Yet  it 
seems  inconsistent  to  make  the  same  Person  both  principal 
party  and  surety  in  the  same  transaction  !  I  can  give  the  solu- 
tion, which  Dick  could  not  :  In  the  eternal  Covenant  of 
Redemption  Christ  is  principal  party :  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  He  is  surety.  Again  :  Is  the  Covenant  conditioned  or 
unconditioned  ?  Here  also,  Dick  is  fatally  entangled.  Will  he 
say  it  is  conditioned,  and  thus  ascribe  to  the  sinner's  faith  an 
efficient  merit  ?  Or  will  he  say  it  is  unconditioned  :  and  thus 
defraud  us  of  hope  with  an  unbought  redemption?  I  can 
answer :  The  Covenant  of  Redemption  was  conditioned,  on 
Christ's  meritorious  woik.  The  Covenant  of  Grace  is  uncon- 
ditioned :  its  benefits  are  offered  to  believers  without  price. 

To  my  view  Turrettin  has  given  his  virtual  support, 
though  in  a  rather  inconsistent  fashion.  After  beginning  with 
the  one  definition,  of  a  Covenant  of  Grace,  eternal  and  yet 
made  with  man  in  a  surety,  in  Qu.  ii  §  12,  he  raises  the  question 
whether  this  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  by  the  Father  with 
Christ  as  the  other  contracting  party  (for  man's  benefit) ;  or 
whether  it  is  made  with  the  body  of  believers  as  the  second 
party,  in  Christ  as  a  '^  Pars  Medial  His  answer  is,  that  "  the 
debate  is  superfluous  :  because  the  thing  comes  to  the  same." 
But  he  adds,  just  after ;  "  Cerium  est  duplex  hie  pactum  neces- 
sario  attendendwn  esse  vel  unius  ejusdemque  pacti  duas  partes  et 
gradus.  Prius  pactum  est  quod  inter  Patrem  et  Filium  inter- 
cedit  ad  opus  redeinptionis  exequendum.  Posterius  est,  quod 
Dcus  cum  elcctis  in  Christo  contrahit.  Witsius  is  more 
lucid,  and  so  more  consistent.  After  stating  that  God's  Cove- 
nant of  Grace  with  man  is  the  remedy  for  the  broken  Covenart 
28*  .  • 


434 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


of  Works,  he  pauses,  and  begins  his  2nd  chapter.     ^^  De  pacte 
Dei  Patris  et  Filii." 

Ut  Foederis  GraticE  natma  pcnititis  perspecta  sit,  duo  im- 
primis distincte  consideranda  sunt.  I.  Pactum,  quod  inter  Deum 
Patrem  et  Mediatorem  Christum  intercedit.  II.  Testamentaria 
ilia  Dispositio  q7ia  Deus  salutem  cBternam  electis,  et  omnia  eo 
pertinentia  immutabili  fccdere  addicit.  Prior  Conventio  Dei 
C7im  Mediatore  est.  Posterior  Dei  cum  Electis.  Haec  illam 
supponit,  et  in  illafundatur!' 

The  original  parties  to  the  Covenant  of  Redemption  are 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  is  plausibly 
to  AeSSfant^''"^''  "^ged  by  Dick,  that  in  this  transaction,  the 
Father  acted  not  only  tor  Himself,  as  one 
person  of  the  Trinity,  but  for  the  whole  Godhead,  as  represen- 
tative of  the  offended  majesty  of  the  three  persons  equally. 
His  reason  is,  that  all  the  persons  being  similar  in  attributes  and 
dignity,  must  be  conceived  of  as  all  alike  offended  by  man's 
sin  and  guilt ;  and  alike  demanding  the  reconciling  interven- 
tion of  a  Daysman  ;  the  Holy  Ghost  as  much  as  the  Father. 
It  must  be  confessed  that  Dick  cannot  present  any  scriptural, 
direct  proof  of  this  view;  but  it  seems  reasonable.  The  Father 
on  the  one  part,  then,  acts  as  the  representative  of  the  God- 
head ;  Christ  as  the  representative  of  the  elect.  The  question 
is  raised  by  Dick  :  Is  Christ  surety  for  man  to  God  only,  or  for 
God  also  to  believers  ?  He  answers,  not  for  God  to  believers  ; 
because  this  is  derogatory  to  God,  as  implying  that  His  fidelity 
and  mercy  need  or  admit  of  any  higher  warrant  than  His  own 
word.  (But  see  Turretin,  Loc.  cit.  §  i6.)  Does  not  God  make 
known  His  fidelity  as  a  promiser  of  pardon  and  life,  and  His 
mercy,  precisely  through  this  surety,  as  the  prophet  of  the 
Covenant?  Would  man  be  any  otherwise  warranted  to  hope 
for  any  mercy  ?  Further,  the  fact  that  God's  goodness  to  us 
needs  and  admits  of  any  certifying  by  a  surety,  results  from 
nothing  discreditable  to  God,  but  from  something  discreditable 
to  us — our  guilty  mistrust.  That  God,  who  deserves  to  be 
trusted  on  His  mere  word,  should  condescend  to  give  us 
warranty  of  His  fidelity  in  the  messsage,  death  and  sacraments 
of  His  Son  ;  this  is  His  amazing  grace  and  goodness.  (See  i 
Tim.  i  :  i6.)  And  are  not  the  sacraments  seals  ?  Does  not 
Christ  in  them  act  as  surety  for  God  to  us  ? 

To  the  question  whether  believers  are  also  parties  in  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  no  better  answer  can  be  given  than  that  of 
Turrettin,  §  I2.  In  the  eternal  sense  of  the  Covenant,  they 
were  not  parties ;  in  the  sense  of  its  exhibitions  in  time,  they 
are  parties  ;  i.  e.,  in  their  surety. 

The  Covenant  of  Redemption  being,  as  regards  the  Father 

and  the  Son,  but  a  part  of  the  single  Decree, 

^  The  Covenant  Eter-    ^^^^  ^^  ^^  eternal  as  that  Decree.     It  began 

in  the    counsels  of  a  past  eternity  :  and  in 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  435 

one  sense,  its  administration  will  extend  (if  not  in  the  media- 
torial offices  of  the  Surety,  at  least  in  the  communications  of 
grace,)  to  a  future  eternity.  In  proof  of  its  eternity,  see  Heb. 
xiii :  20 ;  i  Pet.  i  :  20.  Hence  the  Covenant  can  only  be  one  ; 
and  therefore  it  can  only  be  spoken  of  as  "  first,"  "  second  " 
(e.  g.,  Heb.  viii  :  7,)  or  "  old,"  "  new,"  (as  Heb.  viii :  8  ;  xii  :  24,) 
with  reference  to  its  forms  of  manifestation. 

Having  considered  the  Godhead  (represented  in  the  Father,) 

^,    .         r  r-  J  .      and    Christ,    as  the   original    parties  to  this 
Motives  of  God  to  '  •  .         n 

the  Covenant.  The  covenant,  the  question  naturally  arises : 
Father  not  persuaded  What  motive  prompted  them  to  this  dispen- 
by  the  Son  to  it.  ^^^-^^^    of  amazing   love   and   mercy?      The 

only  consistent  answer  is  :  their  own  will,  moved  by  their  own 
intrinsic  benevolence,  compassion  and  other  attributes.  To 
this  agree  all  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  describe  God's 
electing  love  as  free  and  unprocured  by  anything  in  man  ; 
(Rom.  ix  :  11,  16,)  because  our  election  is  but  the  embracing  of 
us  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Eph.  1:4.  This  is  equally  sub- 
stantiated by  the  argument  that  God  could  not  be  moved  by 
foreseen  good  in  us,  to  embrace  us  in  this  covenant;  because 
the  only  foreseen  good  in  us  was  that  which  was  to  result  from 
the  administration  of  the  grace  of  that  very  covenant.  It  can- 
not be  said  that  man's  misery  was  more  than  the  occasion  of 
God's  purpose  in  forming  this  Covenant  of  Grace;  for  if  we 
supposed  it  the  procuring,  or  efficient  cause,  the  misery  of 
non-elect  men  and  angels  ought  equally  to  have  procured  a 
Covenant  of  Grace  towards  them  also. 

Some  have  misrepresented  the  truth  hereupon  by  teaching 
that  Christ's  undertaking  to  satisfy  the  law  in  man's  stead  is  the 
procuring  cause  of  God's  purpose  of  mercy  towards  man.  The 
error  of  this  view  is  evident  from  this  consideration,  that,  then, 
Christ  would  be  originally  more  benevolent  and  merciful  than 
the  Father.  But  they  are  equal  and  harmonious  originally,  in 
this,  as  in  all  other  excellencies.  The  true  statement  is,  that 
Christ's  promise  of  a  vicarious  righteousness  was  necessary  to 
enable  the  Father's  purpose  of  mercy  to  be  effectuated  consis- 
tently with  other  attributes — that  purpose  being  precisely  as 
original  and  uncaused  in  the  Father  as  in  the  Son. 

Dick  (Lee.  49,)  has  very    happily  simplified  the  question, 
,  ■,    ^  "  What  were  the    conditions    bargained  by 
by  Christ— just  what  the  Son   to  the   Godhead,  on  behalf  of  His 
man  owed.    ist.  Obedi-  people?"  by  considering  Him  as  placed  pre- 
^"^^"  .      cisely  in  His  people's  room  and  stead.     He 

bargained  to  do  precisely  what  they  should  have  done,  to  supply 
precisely  "  their  lack  of  service."  The  intrinsic  righteousness  of 
the  rules  imposed  on  man  in  the  Covenant  of  Works,  as  being 
precisely  what  they  ought  to  have  been  ;  and  the  immutability 
of  God's  nature,  show  that  whoever  came  forward  to  be  their 
surety,  must  expect  to  have  to  undertake  precisely  what  was 


436  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

incumbent  on  them  in  that  covenant.  The  first  part  of  this 
obHgation  was  to  a  Hfe  of  perfect  obedience.  This  Hfe  Christ 
rendered.  (See,  e.  g.,  Matt,  xvii.:  5).  A  class  of  theologians 
has  rejected  the  idea  that  Christ's  active  obedience  was  vicari- 
ous, and  is  imputed  to  His  people.  While  this  question  will 
come  up  more  naturally  when  we  discuss  the  subjects  of  Satis- 
faction and  Justification,  we  may  briefly  remark  of  it  now,  that 
the  consideration  above  offered  is  obviously  in  favour  of  the 
Calvinistic  view.  Besides ;  when  the  Mess'ah  is  represented  as 
saying,  "A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  &c.,  (Ps.  xl  :  6,  8, 
quoted  ;  Heb.  x  :  5,  10,)  it  is  surely  a  very  contracted  and  per- 
verse interpretation,  to  suppose  that  He  was  clothed  with 
humanity  only  with  reference  to  one  and  the  last  act  of  His 
humanity ;  and  that  the  general  phrase,  "  I  come  to  do  Thy 
will,"  is  to  be  understood  only  of  the  single  act  of  offering  His 
flesh.     (See  also  Gal.  iv  :  4  and  5). 

But  man,  while  still   bound    to    perpetual    obedience,  has 

already    come    under   penalty,  by   failing  to 
2nd.  Penalty.  j-..        tt  c         t      u  -5^ 

•'  render  it.     Hence,  our  Surety  bargamed  to 

bear  that  penalty  in  His  people's  stead.  This  cannot  be  more 
clearly  stated  than  in  the  language  of  Is.  liii  :  5,  6;  2  Cor.  v  : 
21.  Some  have  supposed  that  there  is  an  incompatibility 
between  the  first  and  second  condition  :  that  if  the  penalty  for 
a  neglected  obedience  is  paid,  law  has  no  longer  any  claim  for 
that  obedience.  This  represents  the  relation  between  the  law 
and  penalty,  erroneously.  God  does  not  accept  the  penalty  as 
an  equivalent  for  obedience,  in  the  sense  that  either  the  one  or 
the  other  satisfies  the  demands  of  the  Law  and  of  His  nature, 
alike  well.  His  relation  to  His  rational  creatures  demands  of 
them,  by  an  inevitable  and  perpetual  demand,  perfect  obedi- 
ence :  and  if  that  fails,  penalty  also.  But  waiving  this,  does 
not  the  believer  (having  paid  for  his  past  delinquency  by  his 
surety,)  owe  a  perpetual  and  perfect  obedience  for  the  future  ? 
And  can  he  render  it  in  the  flesh  ?  Hence  his  surety  must 
Tender  it  for  him,  as  well  as  pay  the  penalty. 

In  the  third  place,  we  may  say  scripturally,  that  Christ  bar- 
gained, among  all  other  compliances  with  His 
Mediator^^  °^'''  °^  Father's  will,  to  do  as  Mediator,  all  those 
things  pertaining  to  His  prophetic  and  kingly 
offices,  necessary  on  His  part,  to  the  salvation  of  the  elect.  He 
undertook  their  instruction,  guidance,  protection  and  conquest 
to  Himself  Weigh  John  xvii  :  12-14,  ^oi"  instance,  where  our 
Saviour  speaks  of  His  agency  in  instructing  and  guiding  His 
disciples  as  of  a  fulfilled  compact.     (See  also,  Ps.  xxii  :  22). 

Passing  now  to  the  other  side  of  the  compact,  we  may  say 

that  the  Godhead,  represented  in  the  Father, 

b  ^the  Father  ^^^^^^^    engaged  on   His  side,  to  the  Son,  to  clothe 

Him  with  humanity  for  the  fulfilment  of  His 

task,  (Ps.  xl  :  6,)  and  to  endue  Christ  plenteously  with  gifts  and 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  43/ 

graces  therefor,  (Is.  xlix  :  2  ;  Ixi  :  1,2,)  to  uphold  Him  under 
His  heavy  task,  (Is.  xKi  :  I-/,)  to  give  Him  an  elect  seed  as  the 
sure  reward  of  His  labours,  (Is.  xlix  :  6  ;  liii  :  10,)  and  to  bestow 
His  royal  exaltation,  with  all  its  features  of  glory.  (Ps.  ii  :  6  ; 
Phil,  ii  :  9,  10).  As  there  is  a  secondary  sense,  in  which  God, 
in  unfolding  His  eternal  Covenant  of  Grace,  bargains  with  man, 
so  there  is  a  sense  in  which  there  are  terms  proposed  between 
God  and  believers  also.  It  may  be  remarked  in  general,  that 
there  is  a  sense  in  which  a  part  of  the  benefits  promised  to 
Christ  are  promised  through  Him  also  to  His  people;  and  a 
part  of  the  blessings  covenanted  to  them,  are  honours  and 
rewards  to  Him.  Thus  His  mediatorial  graces  are  their  gain  ; 
and  their  redemption  is  His  glory.  Hence,  this  division  between 
benefits  covenanted  to  His  people,  and  those  covenanted  to 
Christ,  cannot  be  sharply  carried  out. 

When  we  consider  the  covenant  as  between  God  and 
believers,  however,  it  is  evident  that  there 
dittnReqXedolMen'  are  terms  bargained  between  them.  These 
may  be  found  briefly  expressed  in  the  words 
so  often  repeated,  and  obviously  intended  to  be  so  significant 
in  Scriptures  ;  Gen.  xvii  :  7  ;  Jer.  xxxi  :  33  ;  Rev.  xxi  :  3  ;  "I 
will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  My  people."  In  this  cove- 
nant God  briefly  bargains,  on  His  part,  to  be  reconciled  to  be- 
lievers, and  to  communicate  Himself  to  them  as  their  guide, 
light,  consolation,  and  chief  good.  They,  on  their  part,  are 
held  bound  to  the  correlative  reconciliation,  grounding  their 
weapons  of  rebellion  and  exercising  the  spirit  of  adoption,  to  a 
life  of  self-consecration  and  obedience,-  to  separation  from  the 
world  of  His  enemies,  and  conformity  of  heart  and  life  to  God's 
will.  It  is  true,  that  the  transaction  of  Gen.  17th  is  rather 
ecclesiastical  than  spiritual ;  but  the  spiritual  is  always  included 
and  represented  in  the  outward. 

The  full  and  blessed  significance  of  this  formula  will  not 
be  apprehended,  unless  we  consider  that  it  is  not  used  in  Scrip- 
ture once,  but  as  often  as  the  covenant  of  grace  proposed  or 
renewed.  Compare  not  only  Gen.  xvii  :  7,  8,  but  Exod.  xx  : 
2  ;  xxix:  45  ;  Deut.  v  :  2,  3,  6  ;  Jer.  xxiv  :  7  ;  xxx  :  22  ;  xxxi: 
33  ;  Ezek.  xi  :  20  ;  Zech.  xiii  :  9.  And  in  tjie  New  Testament, 
2  Cor.  vi  :  16  ;  Heb.  8,  10,  and  Rev.  xxi  :  3.  We  thus  see  from 
this  emphatic  repetition,  that  these  words  are  the  summary  of 
all  the  blessings  and  duties  arising  out  of  the  gospel  relation. 
They  are  common  to  both  dispensations.  They  re-appear  as  a 
grand  "  refrain,"  whenever  the  prophets  sing  most  triumphantly 
the  blessings  of  the  covenant :  until  we  hear  them  for  the  last 
time  as  the  song  of  the  ransomed  and  glorified  Church.  This 
relation  thus  expressed  is  to  be  understood  then ;  not  as  the 
general  one  of  Creator  and  creature,  sovereign  proprietor  and 
servant ;  but  as  the  special  and  gracious  relation  established  in 
the  Mediator  by  the  Gospel.     In   it    God    promises   to  be  to 


438  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

believers  all  that  is  implied  in  their  redemption  and  eternal 
adoption  ;  while  the  believer  is  held  bound  to  all  that  is  im- 
plied in  faith  and  repentance. 

The  question  then  arises,  whether  all  the  graces  and  duties 

of  the   Christian   life    may  be   accounted  as 

Faith  the  only  Con-    conditions  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.     If  so, 

dition.  .     .  11-  1         ^ 

is  it  not  reduced  again  to  another  Covenant 
of  Works  ?  The  answer  is,  that  it  is  only  in  a  very  slight,  and 
improper  sense,  the  Christian's  holy  life  can  be  called  a  con- 
dition of  his  share  in  grace — only  as  in  the  order  of  sequence 
it  is  true  that  a  holy  life  on  earth  must  precede  a  complete  re- 
demption in  heaven.  .So  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  this  holy 
life  is  in  any  sense  a  meritorious  condition  of  receiving  grace, 
or  a  procuring  cause  ;  it  is  itself  the  fruit  and  result  of  grace. 
But  when  we  examine  more  minutely  the  account  of  that  gra- 
cious transaction  in  the  Scriptures  shadowed  forth  in  the  eccle- 
siastical transaction  of  Gen.  17th,  and  stated  first  more  simply 
in  Gen.  15th,  we  find  that  Abraham's  faith  only  was  imputed  to 
him  for  righteousness.  Gen.  xv  :  6  ;  Rom.  iv  :  9,  10,  &c.  This 
effectually  explains  the  matter.  The  argument  in  favour  of  the 
position  we  have  assumed,  is  sufficiently  strengthened  by  add- 
ing that  all  graces  and  holy  living  are  everywhere  spoken  of  by 
God,  and  sought  by  Bible  saints  in  prayer,  as  God's  gifts 
bestowed  as  the  fruit  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Citations  are 
needless. 

The  question  has  been  keenly  agitated  between  Calvinists, 

whether  Faith  itself  should  be  spoken  of  as 
eriy^cIued'a'cJndS"    ^  condition  of  the  covenant.     One  party  has 

denied  it,  because  they  supposed  that  the 
language  which  represented  man  as  performing  a  condition  of 
his  own  salvation  would  make  an  inlet  for  human  merit.  But  it 
is  most  manifest  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  Faith  is  the  con- 
dition, in  all  such  passages  as  John  iii  :  16  ;  Acts  viii  :  37  ;  John 
xi  :  26  ;  Mark  xvi  :  16.  No  human  wit  can  evade  the  fact,  that 
here  God  proposes  to  man  a  something  for  him  to  do,  which,  if 
done,  will  secure  redemption  ;  if  neglected,  will  ensure  damna- 
tion— and  that  something  is  in  one  sense  a  condition.  But 
of  what  kind?  Paul  everywhere  contrasts  the  condition  of 
works,  and  the  condition  of  faith.  This  contrast  will  be  suf- 
ficiently established,  and  all  danger  of  human  merits  being 
intruded  will  be  obviated,  if  it  be  observed  that  Faith  is  only 
the  appointed  instrument  for  receiving  free  grace  purchased  by 
our  Surety.  It  owes  its  organic  virtue  as  such,  to  God's  mere 
appointment,  not  to  the  virtue  of  its  own  nature.  In  the  Cove- 
nant of  Works,  the  fulfilment  of  the  condition  on  man's  part 
earned  the  result,  justification  by  its  proper  moral  merit.  In  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  the  condition  has  no  moral  merit  to  earn 
the  promised  grace,  being  merely  an  act  of  receptivity.  In  the 
Covenant  of  Works,  man  was  required  to  fulfil  the  condition  in 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  439 

his  own  strength.     In  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  strength  is  given 
to  him  to  beheve,  from  God, 

The  question  now  remains,  whether,  in  this  instrumental 

sense,  any  thing  else  besides  faith  is  a  condi- 

No  other  Condition.    ^-^^^   ^f  ^^^  Covenant  of  Grace.     (See   Cat 

Evasions.  _  \       ,.  n  •  11  r    •    1         1  ^    ,,     -T-T 

yues.  33).  Received  by  laith  alone.  Ihere 
are  two  evasions  :  one,  that  which  makes  Repentance  a  condi- 
tion along  with  faith,  Luke  xiii  :  3  ;  Acts  ii  :  38,  &c.  Contrast 
with  Jno.  iii  :  16-18  ;  Acts  xvi  :  30,  31.  The  other  is  the  one 
common  to  Papists,  {ineritum  congruimt  of  Jides  forvtata,)  some 
classes  of  New  England  Divines  (justification  by  faith  appre- 
hended as  the  generative  principle  of  holiness,  and  inclusive 
thereof,)  and  the  Campbellites,  (justification  by  the  "  obedience 
of  faith,"  viz:  immersion).  Here  is  a  subtile  inlet  for  works. 
These  perversions  have  all  this  common  mark,  that  they  desert 
the  scriptural  doctrine,  which  makes  faith  the  instrument  of 
justification  solely  through  its  receptive  agency,  and  they  claim 
for  faith  a  purchasing  power,  or  merit  of  the  result.  Recurring 
to  the  former  evasion,  which  makes  repentance  a  co-condition 
of  the  covenant,  along  with  faith,  we  shall  do  no  more  in  this 
place  than  refer  the  student  to  the  discriminating  statements  of 
Turrettin.  Ques.  3,  §  15,  16,  17.  When  we  come  to  justifi- 
cation, we  shall  resume  it. 


LECTURE  XXX  VJI. 

CONENANT  OF  GRACE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Has  God  ever  had  more  than  one  covenant  with  man  since  the  fall?     \Miat 
the  opinion  of  the  Socinians  hereon ?     Of  Anabaptists?     Of  Remonstrants ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xii,  Qu.  5,  §  1-4,  for  statements,  and  5  to  end  for  Arguments. 
Racovian  Catechism.  Witsius,  bk.  iii,  ch.  I,  2.  Hodge's  Theol.,  pt.  iii,  ch. 
2,  §6. 

2.  Under  how  many  Dispensations  has  the  Covenant  been  administered?     And 
why  so  many  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  7.  Witsius,  bk.  iii,  Qu.  3.  Ridgeley,  Qu.  30,  3;^.  Hodge  as 
above,  §7, 

3.  How  much  of  the  Covenant  was  revealed  to  the  Antediluvians  ?     A  Mediator? 
Sacrificial  Types?     Prove  that  Gen.  iii  :  15  is  a  Protevangel. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  7,  §  11-17.  Heb.  xi :  4.  Witsius,  bk.  iv,  ch.  i,  2.  Dick, 
Lect.  50.  Knapp,  |  89-91.  Ridgeley,  Qu.  30,  33.  Discourses  of  Redemp- 
tion, Dr.  S.  Robinson. 

4.  What  additional  revelations  from  Abraham  to  Moses  ?     Prove  that  Abraham's 
was  also  a  Covenant  of  Grace.     Does  the  Pentateuch  reveal  a  promise  of  Eternal  Life  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  7,  ^  18  to  end.  Calvin's  Inst.,  blv.  ii,  cli.  10.  Warburton's 
Divine  Legadon  of  Moses.     Knapp  and  Ridgeley  as  above. 

TNASMUCH  as  the  plan  of  our  Seminary  directs  the  teacher 

of  Systematic  Theology  to  give  special  prominence  to  the 

successive  developments  of  revealed  truth, 

to  bc'Sc?™^''*  of  Grace  f^^^^^  ^s  we  proceed,  from  the  Patriarchal  to 

the    Mosaic,    and   thence   to   the  Christian 

ages,  we  devote  other  exercises  to  the  subject  above  announced. 

In  discussing  it    briefly,  the  order  of   topics  indicated  in  the 

syllabus  of  questions  will  be  pursued. 

Has  God  ever  had  more  than  one  Covenant  of  Grace  with 
The  Covenant  one  ^'^^^  since  the  fall?  And  is  the  covenant 
in  all  ages.  Opposing  made  with  the  Patriarchs  and  with  Israel 
^^^^^-  substantially  the  same  spiritual  covenant  with 

that  of  the  New  Testament  ?  The  Socinians  and  Anabaptists 
give  a  negative  answer  to  this  question,  relying  on  the  passages 
of  Scripture  represented  by  Jno.  i  :  17.  They  say  that  the 
covenant  with  Abraham  and  Israel  was  only  national  and  tem- 
poral ;  that  it  promised  only  material  good  ;  that  those  of  the 
Old  Testament  who  were  saved,  were  saved  without  a  revealed 
promise,  in  virtue  of  that  common  natural  religion,  known,  as 
they  suppose,  to  good  Pagans  alike  ;  by  which  men  are  taught 
to  hope  in  the  mercy  and  benevolence  of  a  universal  Father. 
To  these  views  the  European  Arminians  partly  assented,  teach- 
ing that  the  Gospel  through  the  mediator  is  only  involved  im- 
plicitly and  generally  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  no  special 
promise  through  a  Christ  is  there. 

The  motive  of  the  Socinians  is  two  fold ;  that  they  may 
440 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  44 1 

Motive  of  the  Socini-  escape  this  insuperable  difficulty  ;  if  Christ's 
ans.  Of  the  Anabap-  redeeming  work  (in  the  New  Testament)  is 
*^^^^'  only  what  they  teach,  that  of  a  prophet  and 

exemplar,  and  not  vicarious,  there  is  no  sense  in  which  He  can 
have  redeemed  Old  Testament  saints,  and  2nd,  that  by  making 
the  difference  of  light  and  grace  between  the  Old  Testament  and 
the  New,  as  wide  as  possible,  they  may  plausibly  represent  Christ 
as  having  something  to  do  in  the  New  Testament,  digmini  vindice 
nodum,  without  any  atoning  work.  The  Anabaptists,  whose 
Socinian  affinities  were  originally  strong,  take  the  same  view  of 
the  Old  Testament,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  that  a 
gospel  Church,  substantially  identical  with  that  of  the  New 
Testament,  existed  in  the  Old  Testament  with  its  infant  church 
members. 

This  discussion  will  be  found  to  have  an  equal  importance, 
when  we  come  to  the  Popish  theory  of  sacramental  grace, 
Rome  claims  for  her  sacraments  under  the  New  Testament  an 
opus  operatum  power.  She  does  not  claim  it  for  the  sacraments 
of  the  Old  Testament :  for  the  reason  that  the  Apostle  Paul, 
among  other  inspired  men,  expressly  contradicts  it,  as  Rom.  ii  : 
25-29,  and  I  Cor.  x  :  1-5.  Now,  if  we  identify  the  substance 
of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  under  both  Testaments,  we  found  at 
least  a  very  strong  probable  argument  for  concluding  that  the 
sacraments  of  the  two  Testaments  were  means  of  grace  of  the 
same  kind.  Then  all  the  explicit  denials  of  efficiency  ex  opefc 
operato  uttered  in  Scripture  as  to  the  Old  Testament  sacra- 
ments, become  conclusive  as  to  the  sacraments  of  the  Christian 
■Church. 

As  to  the  unity  of  the  Covenant,  we  have  already  argued 
this    a  priori,    from    its    eternity.     We    may 

Unity  of  this  Cove-    pursue  this  argument  thus  :  If  man's  fall  laid 

nant  appears  a  prion.     \  p>  .  .      . 

him  necessarily  obnoxious  to  certain  immu- 
table attributes  of  God,  if  man's  sin  necessarily  and  everywhere 
raises  a  certain  definite  difficulty  between  him  and  redemption 
in  consequence  of  those  inevitable  attributes  of  God,  we  may 
fairly  conclude,  that  whatever  plan  (if  there  can  be  any)  is 
adopted  by  God  to  reconcile  a  sinner,  that  same  plan  substan- 
tially must  be  adopted  to  reconcile  all  other  sinners  of  Adam's 
race,  everywhere  and  always.  To  the  Socinian  indeed,  this  a 
priori  consideration  carries  no  weight ;  because  he  does  not 
believe  in  God's  essential,  retributive  justice,  &c.  Let  us  then 
see  from  the  more  sure  word  of  Scripture,  whether  the  covenant 
of  grace  set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament  is  not  substantially 
identical  with  that  in  the  New,  in  the  things  promised,  the 
parties,  the  conditions,  and  the  mediator ;  while  a  difference  of 
clearness  and  mode  is  admitted. 

Unity  of  the  Cove-  This    Scriptural    argument    cannot    be 

nant  argued  Scriptu-    better  collected  than  under  the  heads  given 
'^^^y-  by  Turrettin,  (Ques.  v,  §  7-23). 


442  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

The  identity  of  the  Covenant  is  substantially  asserted  m 

general  terms — e.  g.,  in  Luke  i  :  68-73  '■>  A.;ts 

^  (a)^  From  direct  testi-     ■■  .^^^  ^^^h  VS   38,  39  ;    iii  :  2$  ;    John  viii  136;. 

Rom.  iv  :  16  ;  Gal.  iii  :  8,  16,  17;  especially 
the  last.  Remark  here,  that  the  very  words  in  which  the  Cove- 
nant was  formed  with  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xvii  :  7  ;  and 
which  are  so  formally  repeated  in  subsequent  parts  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  the  very  terms  of  the  compact  in  the  new  dis- 
pensation, repeated  as  such  with  emphasis.  See  Jer.  xxxi  : 
33  ;   2  Cor.  vi  :  16  ;  Rev.  xxi  :  3. 

The  Mediator  is  the  same.  I  Tim.  ii  :  5,  6  ;  Gal.  iii  :  16  ; 
Mai.  iii  :  I  ;  Acts  iv  :  12,  x  :  43,  xv  :  10,  1 1  ; 
ofUSrr.""'""^  Luke  xxiv:_27;  i  Pet.  1:9-12;  Rom.  iii: 
25  ;  Heb.  ix  :  15  ;  with  many  passages 
already  cited.  We  need  not  depend  on  such  passages  as  iieb. 
xiii  :  8  ;  Rev.  xiii  :  8  ;  for  although  their  application  to  prove 
the  mediatorial  office  of  Christ  under  the  Old  Testament  is 
probably  just,  plausible  evasions  exist. 

The  condition  assigned  to  man  is  the  same  in  both — e.  g., 
faith.  And  it  is  useless  for  the  Socinians, 
dom  ^'°"'  "'  '°"'^"  &c.,  to  say,  that  the  faith  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  not  the  specific  faith  in  the  Son> 
the  Messiah,  set  forth  in  the  New,  but  only  a  general  trust  in 
God  as  the  Universal  Father.  For  their  assertion  is  not  true ;. 
and  if  true,  it  would  still  remain,  that  the  faith  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament and  that  of  the  New,  include  the  same  substantial  fea- 
tures. Look  at  the  fact  that  Heb.  xi  goes  for  its  illustrations  of 
faitn,  (surely  it  was  inculcating  the  Christian  faith,)  exclusively 
to  the  Old  Testament !  See,  also,  Gen.  xv  :  6,  with  Rom.  iv  : 
3  :  Ps.  ii  ;  12.  (Is  not  this  specifically  faith  in  the  Son  ?)  Acts 
X  :  43  ;  Ps.  xxxii  :  10,  ^^  passim. 

In  the  fourth  place,  it  may  be  asserted  that  to  this  faith  of 

the  Old  Testament  saints,  redemption  in  the 

(d)  From  its  promise.    ^^^^  ^^^^  Testament  sense  was  held  forth, 

with  all  its  several  parts;  of  justification,  Ps.  xxxii  ;  Is.  i  :  18  ; 

Regeneration,    Deut.    xxx  :  6  ;    Ps.    Ii  :    10 :    Spiritual   gifts — 

passim — e.  g.,  Joel  ii  :  28,  32,  as  expounded  by  Peter,  Acts  ii  : 

Isaiah  xl  :  31  ;  eternal  life  :  (as  we  shall  more  fully  argue  under 

a  subsequent  head,  now  only  noticing,)     Heb.   iv  :  9,  xi  :  10  ; 

Exod.  iii  :  6,  as   expounded  by  Christ;   Matt,  xxii  :  31,  32,  and 

this  eternal  life,   including  even   the  resurrection   of  the  body. 

Ps.  xvi  :  10,  II,  applied   in   Acts   xiii  :  34  :  Job  xix  :  25  ;   Dan. 

xii  :  I,  2.     In  view  of  this  array   of  proofs,  how  weak  appears 

the  idea,  that  nothing  more   than  the   Land  of  Canaan  and  its 

material  joys  was  proposed  to  Israel's  faith?     But  of  this  more 

anon. 

An  argument  for  our  proposition  may  be   constructed  out 

,  ^  ^       ,    „  of  all  those  types  under  the  old  dispensation, 

(e.)  From  the  Types.         ...  .■'  ^  j.i  ij 

^  '  which  can  be  proved  to  have  had  an  evan- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  443 

gelical  meaning.  The  promised  land  itself,  the  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  with  its  significant  incidents  ;  circumcision  and  the 
passover,  ("  seals  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,")  with  the  whole 
tabernacle  ritual,  are  proved  by  several  parts  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament to  have  had  this  evangelical  meaning.  The  argument 
is  too  wide  to  be  briefly  stated ;  but  every  intelligent  Bible 
reader  is  familiar  with  its  materials.  In  its  very  wideness  is  its 
strength.  As  one  specimen  of  it,  take  the  Epistle  of  Hebrews 
itself.  The  Apostle,  in  interpeting  the  Levitical  ritual,  there 
shows  that  all  prefigured  the  gospel,  and  the  New  Testament, 
Messiah  and  redemption.  During  the  Old  Testament  times, 
therefore,  it  was  but  a  dispensation  of  this  same  Covenant  of 
Grace. 

And  in  general,  all  the  gospel  features  sown  so  thickly 
over  the  Old  Testament,  especially  over  the  books  of  Psalms 
and  Isaiah,  prove  our  point. 

Of  such  passages  as  Rom.  xvi  :  25  ;  Gal.  iv  :  24;  i  Pet. 
i  :  12,  &c.,  we  are  well  aware.  We  shall  show  their  com- 
patibility with  the  proposition  above  demonstrated,  when  we 
come  to  unfold  the  resemblances  and  differences  of  the  two  dis- 
pensations. 

We  conceive  the   familiar  and  established  division  to  be 
Two   Dispensations    Correct,  which  makes  two  dispensations  only, 
only.      Objection  an-    the    Old   Testament   and   the    New.     There 
^^^^'^'^-  seems  no  adaquate  reason  for  regarding  the 

patriarchal  age,  from  Adam  to  Moses,  as  essentially  a  different 
dispensation  from  that  of  Moses.  Certainly  that  representation 
is  incorrect  which  makes  the  former  a  free  and  gracious  dispen- 
sation, while  the  latter  only  was  burdened  with  the  condemning 
weight  of  the  moral  and  ritual  law.  For  the  moral  law  as  to 
its  substance,  was  already  in  force  from  Adam  to  Moses. 
Sacrifices  already  smoked  on  altars,  and  the  knife  descended  in 
symbol  of  wrath,  on  innocent  victims.  And  gracious  promises 
on  the  other  hand,  are,  at  least,  as  thickly  strown  over  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Mosaic  period,  as  of  the  patriarchal.  We 
hardly  need  cite  cases.  There  are  passages,  such  as  Gal. 
iii  :  17  to  19th  ;  Deut.  v  :  2,  3,  which  speak  of  a  ritual  burden, 
and  law  which  could  minister  only  condemnation,  as  superadded 
at  the  Mosaic  era.  But  we  shall  find  that  the  elements  of  a 
moral  law  impossible  for  the  depraved  to  fulfil,  and  of  a  ritual 
which  typified  only  wrath  to  him  who  persisted  in  ignoring  the 
Mediator  and  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  were  also  present  in  the 
patriarchal  religion.  The  history  of  Cain  too  clearly  estab- 
lishes these  traits  of  the  patriarchal  age.  These  elements  were 
only  re-affirmed  by  Moses.  If  it  be  said  that  they  were  then 
brought  forward  with  far  greater  prominence  and  distinctness, 
I  answer,  so  were  the  gospel  elements  brought  forward,  to  true 
believers,  at  the  same  time,  with  increased  distinctness.  When 
the  Apostles  bring  out  so  prominently  this  condemning  burden, 


444  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  the  Mosaic  law,  they  are  deahng,  tor  the  time,  with  only  one 
side  of  the  subject.  Because,  they  are  dealing  with  Jews  who 
persisted  in  looking  for  justification  to  this  law,  which  apart  from 
Christ,  is  only  a  ministry  of  condemnation ;  who  persisted  in 
stickling  for  Moses,  Moses,  as  their  authority  for  their  self- 
righteous  perversions  of  the  law  and  gospel.  In  dealing  with 
this  subject,  theologians  perpetually  forget  how  necessarily  the 
Apostles  had  to  use  the  argmnentiim  ad  Jiominem  against  these 
Jews.  That  the  patriarchial  and  Mosaic  form  properly  but  one 
dispensation  appears  from  this.  Both  exhibit  the  great,  preva- 
lent characteristic  of  types :  both  were  prefigurative  instead  of 
being,  like  the  New  Testament,  commemorative  ;  both  had  sac- 
rifice, circumcision,  priests.  The  difference  between  them  is 
only  one  of  degree,  and  not  of  contrast.  But  when  we  come 
to  the  New  Testament,  there  is  a  real  contrast.  Human  priests, 
sacrifices  and  circumcision  end.  Types  give  place  to  antitypes; 
prefiguring  to  commemorative  ordinances. 

To  the  question  why  God  has  administered  the  Covenant 

Why  two  Dispensa-    ^^  Grace  under  two  different   dispensations, 

tions  of  the  same  Gov-    no  Complete  answer  can  be  rendered,  except 

enant  ?    Ans.  ^j^^^  ^f  ^^^^    ^j  .  ^^       jj^g   ^^^^   difficulty  of 

the  question  lies  chiefly  back,  in  this  prior  question  :  Why  did 
God  see  fit  to  postpone  the  incarnation  of  the  mediator  so  long 
after  the  fall  ?  For,  supposing  this  question  settled,  we  can  see 
some  reasons  why,  if  the  effectuating  of  the  terms  of  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,  was  to  be  postponed  thus,  its  declarations  to 
man  must  be  by  a  different  dispensation  before  and  after  the. 
surety  came.  Before,  all  was  prospective.  Every  promise 
must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  a  prediction  also  ;  and  predic- 
tion, prior  to  its  fulfilment,  must  needs  be,  to  finite  minds, 
less  plain  than  experience  and  history  after  the  occurrence. 
Every  symbolical  ordinance  (both  dispensations  for  good  rea- 
sons have  such)  must  needs  be  a  type  ;  foreshadowing.  After- 
wards it  is  a  commemoration,  looking  backward.  May  it  not 
be,  that  the  greater  variety  and  number  of  the  symbolical  ordi- 
nances under  the  Old  Testament  were  due  to  the  very  fact  that 
they  must  needs  be  less  distinct?  God  sought  to  make  up  in 
number  what  was  lacking  in  distinctness.  But  to  the  question  : 
why  the  mission  of  Christ  was  postponed  nearly  4000  years, 
there  is  no  adequate  answer.  The  circumstances  which  made 
that  era  "the  fullness  of  time"  have  been  pointed  out  by  the 
Church  Historians.  But  the  relations  of  influence  and  causa- 
tion in  human  affairs  are  too  intricate  and  numerous  for  man  to 
speculate  here. 

The  causes  assigned  by  Turrettin(Que.  7,  §  2-6)  do  indeed 
indicate  the  existence  of  an  analogy  with  God's  other  working 
herein.  God  performs  all  His  grand  results  by  gradations. 
Childhood  and  pupilage  go  before  manhood  and  independence. 
So  majestic  a  luminary  as  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  may  be 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  445" 

expected  to  rise  gradually,  and  send  His  twilight  before  Him ! 
True ;  but  these  are  only  palliations,  not  answers  to  the  dififi- 
culty. 

To  appreciate  correctly  the  amount  of  Gospel  light  pos- 
sessed in  the  patriarchal,  and  even  in  the 
preachecftoAdam,^^^  Mosaic  ages,  we  must  bear  in  mind  a  thing 
often  overlooked,  that  the  human  race  had 
just  enjoyed,  in  Adam,  personal  communication  with  God,  in 
fullest  theophanies,  which  Adam,  by  the  faculties  of  his  perfect 
manhood,  and  other  patriarchs,  through  their  longevity,  were 
admirably  qualified  to  transmit  well.  Adam  was  cotemporary  with 
Methuselah  243  years,  Methuselah  with  Noah  600  years  (dying 
the  year  of  the  flood)  and  Noah  with  Abram  58  years.  Thus 
Abraham  received  the  revelations  of  paradise  through  only  two 
transmissions !  We  must  not  suppose  that  this  traditionary 
knowledge  of  God  was  scanty,  because  the  hints  of  it  given  in 
earlier  revelations  are  scanty ;  for  the  purposes  of  the  revela- 
tion to  us  through  Moses  did  not  require  that  God  should  give 
us  full  information  as  to  the  religious  knowledge  of  the  Ante- 
diluvians. The  Bible  is  always  a  practical  book,  and  does  not 
wander  from  its  aim :  it  concedes  notJiing  to  a  merely  useless 
curiosity.  Now,  the  object  of  God  in  giving  to  the  Church  of 
later  ages  this  brief  history  of  primeval  man  was  to  furnish  us 
only  with  the  great  facts,  which  are  necessary  to  enable  us 
understandingly  to  connect  the  Covenants  of  Works  and  Grace, 
and  to  construe  the  spiritual  history  of  our  race.  We  have 
seen  how  briefly  and  sufficiently  the  book  of  Genesis  gave  us 
the  cardinal  facts  of  man's  creation  in  holiness,  his  home  in  par- 
adise, his  Sabbath,  the  institution  of  his  family,  the  unity  of  the 
race,  the  federal  constitution  by  which  God  has  been  pleased 
from  the  first  to  deal  with  it,  the  Covenant  of  Works,  its  breach, 
and  the  far-reaching  consequences.  So,  God  next  gives  us  the 
main  facts  concerning  the  changes  in  His  religion,  which  were 
necessary  to  adapt  it,  as  a  religion  for  sinners.  These  main 
features  are  all  that  were  needed  for  God's  purposes :  and  they 
contain  the  whole  substance  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 

Man's  theological  relation  is  founded  primarily  on  the 
nature  of  God  and  His  creature  ;  and  is  essentially  permanent. 
Hence,  the  theistic  worship  of  paradise,  with  the  Sabbath  rest, 
its  necessary  means,  remained  as  before.  So,  the  constitution 
of  human  society,  under  a  family  government  founded  in  mon- 
ogamy, remained  unchanged,  with  the  whole  code  of  ethical 
duty.  But  man's  sin  and  depravity  had  changed  his  attitude 
towards  God  in  vital  respects.  Duty  having  been  violated,  the 
new  and  hitherto  inoperative  obligation  of  repentance  has 
emerged.  God  teaches  man  this  great  doctrine  of  the  religion 
of  sinners,  by  converting  his  life  from  one  of  ease  and  bliss,  to 
one  of  sorrow  and  discipline.  His  home  is  changed  from  a 
paradise   to   a   penitentiary.       Again  ;  guilt  having    been   con- 


44^  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES. 

tracted,  there  emerges,  out  of  the  moral  attributes  of  God,  a 
necessity  of  satisfaction  for  it,  in  order  to  the  pardon  of  the 
sinner.  This,  the  central  truth  of  the  religion  of  sinners,  which 
points  also  to  the  central  promise  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
had  unhappily  become  the  very  truth,  to  which  man,  by  reason 
of  his  corruption,  would  be  most  obtuse.  His  selfish  depravity 
would  incline  him  ever  to  forget  the  right  of  God's  attributes  in 
the  question  of  a  reconciliation  ;  and  his  selfish  fears  would 
prompt  him  to  crave  impunity,  instead  of  righteous  justification. 
Hence,  in  the  wisdom  of  God,  the  most  notable  and  impressive 
addition  made  by  Him  to  the  ciiltus,  was  the  one  which  was 
devised  to  teach  the  great  doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  propitia- 
tion, and  to  hold  out  its  promise.  This,  indeed,  is  the  only 
ritual  fact  which  needed  recording.  God  appointed  bloody  sac- 
rifice, and  required  it  to  be  the  perpetual  attendant  of  the  wor- 
ship of  sinners.  Thus  He  taught  them,  in  the  most  impressive 
possible  way,  at  once  the  great  need,  and  the  great  promise  of 
the  Covenant  of  Grace ! 

That  bloody  animal  sacrifice  was  of  divine  appointment  at 
this  time,  we  argue,  first,  presumptively  from  the  fact  that 
natural  reason  would  not  have  suggested  it,  as  a  suitable  offer- 
ing to  God.  The  doctrine  of  substitution,  however  honourable 
to  God  when  revealed,  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  a  deduction  of  the 
natural  reason.  Whether  the  Sovereign  Creditor  will  be  pleased 
to  accept  a  substitutionary  payment  of  penal  debt,  is  a  question 
which  He  only  may  answer.  Again  :  doubtless  the  natural 
reason  of  Adam  and  his  family  saw  the  obvious  truth,  which  is 
stated  as  self-evident,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  "  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  goats  cannot  take  away  sins."  The  mere 
animal  has  neither  the  dignity,  nor  community  of  nature,  which 
would  suggest  even  the  possibility  of  its  life's  being  an  equiva- 
lent for  an  immortal  soul.  Hence,  we  do  not  believe  that  the 
human  reason,  left  to  itself,  would  ever  have  devised  such  a 
mode  of  appeasing  God.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  rationalistic 
will-worship  of  Cain.  Not  having  suitable  conviction  of  guilt, 
regard  for  God's  rights  as  requiring  satisfaction  in  order  to 
pardon,  nor  faith  in  the  future,  undescribed  sacrifice  of  the 
"  Woman's  Seed,"  he  did  what  all  other  will-worshippers  since 
have  done :  he  exercised  his  own  rationalistic  ideas  of  the 
suitable,  and  his  own  aesthetic  sentiments,  in  devising  another 
oblation.  He  probably  thought  the  bleeding  and  burning  flesh 
unsuitable,  because  it  was  abhorrent  to  natural  sensibility,  and 
even  to  the  instincts,  and  the  senses  of  sight  and  smell.  Does 
God  find  pleasure  in  the  death-pangs  of  an  innocent,  sentient 
creature  ?  How  much  more  appropriate  the  inanimate  fruits  of 
His  bounty,  for  an  oblation  :  the  brilliant  flowers,  the  blushing 
fruits,  the  nodding  sheaf,  all  redolent  of  peace,  abundance  and 
fragrance.  But  it  was  precisely  this  rationalism,  which,  we  are 
told  in  Genesis,  caused  the  rejection  of  his  offering.     Here  we 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  44/ ■ 

find  a  strong  proof  that  Abel's  was  not  will-worship,  but  the 
fulfilment  of  a  divine  ordinance. 

This  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  language  of  Heb.  xi  :  4, 
which  tells  us,  that  the  preferableness  of  Abel's  offering  arose 
from  this  :  that  he  "  offered  it  by  faith."  Now  faith  implies  a 
revealed  warrant ;  without  this  it  is  presumption.  This  text 
virtually  tells  us  that  animal  sacrifice  was  by  divine  appoint- 
ment. This  conclusion  is  also  strengthened  by  the  truth,  clearly 
implied  in  Gen.  ix  :  3,  4,  that,  until  after  the  flood,  animals  were 
not  killed  for  food  by  God's  people.  Yet  in  Gen.  iii  :  21,  Adam 
and  Eve  are,  by  God,  clad  in  the  skins  of  animals,  in  lieu  of  the 
frail  coverings  of  fig  leaves,  which  they  had  devised  for  them- 
selves, to  conceal  their  shame.  Whence  came  those  skins  ? 
They  might  possibly  be  stripped  from  the  corpses  of  those  that 
died  natural  deaths,  or  were  slain  by  beasts  of  prey.  But  it  is 
much  more  probable,  that  they  were  the  skins  of  the  sacrifices 
Adam  was  then  and  there  taught  to  offer.  Man's  superiority  to 
the  need  of  raiment  in  Paradise  was  doubtless  an  emblem  of 
his  present  holiness  and  guiltlessness :  as  his  newly  born  shame 
was  an  emblem  of  his  guilt  and  corruption.  How  natural  then,  is 
the  conclusion,  that  this  first  effectual  clothing  of  man  the  sinner 
was  the  immediate  result  of  sacrifice,  that  it  was  sacrificial  raiment 
he  wore  ;  and  thus  we  have  here  the  natural  introduction  of  the 
great  idea  of  ^l^^^,  "  covering,"  "  propitiation,"  so  fully  expand- 
ed afterwards.  Once  more,  when  Noah's  family  was  at  length 
authorized  to  eat  animal  food,  the  blood  was  expressly  except- 
ed, because,  as  God  teaches.  He  had  reserved  it  to  make  atone- 
ment for  their  souls.  Does  not  this  imply  that  the  reservation 
was,  from  the  first,  God's  express  ordinance  ?  Animal  sacrifice 
was  then,  God's  appointment ;  and  it  found  its  aim  in  its  signifi- 
cation of  the  need  of  satisfaction  for  guilt,  and  the  promise  and 
foreshadowing  of  a  worthy  substitute,  to  be  afterwards  provided 
by  God.  Thus  we  see,  that  the  maintenance  of  bloody  sacri- 
fice among  the  Pagans  to  our  day,  is  a  ritual  perversion  pre- 
cisely parallel  to  that  we  see  made,  by  nominal  Christians,  ol 
the  New  Testament  sacraments,  a  reliance  on  the  efficacy,  ex 
opere  operate,  of  the  symbol,  instead  of  the  divine  grace  symbol- 
ized. Trent  herself  could  not  define  her  doctrine  of  the  opus 
oper'atmn  more  expressly  than  it  was  held  by  the  Maori  of  New 
Zealand  and  the  classic  Pagans,  as  to  their  bloody  rites. 

The  third  essential  truth  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  taught 
primeval  man,  (and  the  only  remaining  one,)  was  that  set  forth 
in  the  protevangel  of  Gen.  iii  :  15.  By  becoming  an  apostate 
from  God,  he  had  become  the  subject  of  Satan,  who  is  repre- 
sented by  the  serpent.  (See  Lect.  xxvii :  Qu.  3).  The  race  was 
now  become  his  kingdom,  instead  of  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Already  a  sad  experience  was  teaching  them,  that  sin  was  now 
become  a  ruling  principle,  and  not  a  mere  incident :  as  their 


44^  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

outward  misery  was  now  ordained  to  be  a  permanent  state  of 
chastisement.  Doubtless  the  great  question  with  the  sinners 
was  :  "  Is  this  final?"  "  Or  is  there  to  be  a  deliverance?"  The 
covenant  of  Grace  answers  :  "  Yes,  there  shall  be  a  deliverance." 
Satan's  conquest  was  to  be  reversed,  destructively  for  Satan,  by 
the  "  Seed  of  the  Woman."  The  promise  is  brief,  but  wonder- 
fully instructive.  Let  only  faith  read  it  consistently ;  and  it 
pointed  to  a  Mediator,  a  Deliverer,  human,  yet  more  than 
human,  miraculously  reared  up,  who  was  to  be  the  antitype  to 
the  bleeding  lamb  even  now  exhibited,  who  should  experience, 
in  prosecuting  the  work  of  delivery,  a  blood-shedding  at  the 
hands  of  the  adversary,  like  that  of  the  suffering  lamb,  yet  not 
destructive ;  inasmuch  as  He  should  survive  to  crush  the  evil 
angel,  and  to  deliver  the  captives. 

That  this  promise  is  a  protevangel  is  argued  first,  presump- 
tively, from  the  triviality  of  the  alternative  meaning.  Did  God 
go  out  of  His  way,  on  this  momentous  occasion,  to  describe 
merely  the  animal  instinct,  which  prompts  the  peasant  to  kill  a 
snake  ?  Second,  the  "  woman's  seed,"  properly  weighed,  must 
be  seen  to  promise  something  supernatural;  because  in  Hebrew 
language,  the  seed  is  always  elsewhere  ascribed  to  the  male, 
(which  is  physiologically  accurate).  Compare  Gen.  xxi  :  13, 
where  Ishmael  is  carefully  distinguished  as  Abraham's  "  seed," 
while  "  son"  "  of  the  bond-woman."  Eve  knew  that  she  could 
only  have  a  "  seed"  supernaturally.  Third:  the  Deliverer  must, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  promised  victory,  be  superior  to 
Satan,  who  was  superior  to  Adam.  Fourth  :  subsequent  Scrip- 
tures, when  using  language  evidently  allusive  to  this  promise, 
represent  this  warfare  as  being  between  Satan  and  the  Messiah. 
Thus,  J  no.  xii  :  "  Now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast 
out."  Luke  X  :  17-19.  Christ's  comment  on  the  success  of 
His  Apostles  in  subduing  "  devils"  is  :  "I  beheld  Satan  as  light- 
ning fall  from  heaven,"  and  He  then  promises  them  farther  vic- 
tory over  "  serpents  and  scorpions"  and  "  over  all  the  power  of 
the  enemy."  Here  we  have  the  old  warfare  of  Gen.  iii  :  15  ; 
and  it  is  between  Messiah  and  Satan  and  his  angels,  not  only 
symbolized  by  "  scorpions  and  serpents,"  but  expressly  named. 
This  onset  of  the  incoming  kingdom  of  heaven  was  seen  by 
Christ  to  give  Satan  such  a  blow,  that  he  appears  like  one 
dashed  violently  from  his  seat,  and  falling,  thunder-smitten  and 
blighted,  to  the  earth.  In  Rom.  xvi  :  20,  Paul  promises  God 
"  shall  bruise  Satan  under  your  feet  shortly."  The  allusion  is 
beyond  mistake.  In  Heb.  ii  :  14,  the  woman's  seed,  "  through 
death  destroys  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the 
devil;"  where  we  see  an  exact  reproduction  of  the  bruised  heel 
and  crushed  head.  In  Rev.  xii  :  9,  and  xx  :  2,  we  have  the 
final  victory  of  Messiah,  in  the  chaining  and  imprisonment  of 
Satan  the  dragon. 

The  short  record  of  Genesis  gives  us  other  evidences  of  a  gos- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  449 

pel  dispensation,  in  the  existence  of  the  two  classes, '  sons  of  God,' 
and  'sons  of  men'.  Gen.  vi  :  2.  So,  the  preaching  of  repent- 
ance by  Enoch  and  Noah,  and  the  strivings  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
•  with  carnal  minds,  Gen.  vi  :  3,  all  imply  a  coyenant  of  Grace. 
In  conclusion,  we  know  that  the  patriarchs  before  the  flood  had 
a  gospel  promise,  because  we  are  assured  by  Hebrews,  chap, 
xi,  that  they  had  faith. 

The  second  dividing  epoch  of  the  old  dispensation  was  the 
calling  of  Abraham,  the  history  of  which  may  be  seen  in  Gen. 
chap,  xii  to  xvii.  There  was  now  an  important  development. 
All  that  had  been  given  to  believers  remained  in  force,  the 
"  Church  in  the  house,"  the  Sabbath,  the  sacrifices,  the  moral 
law,  and  the  promise.  The  most  notable  additions  made  upon 
the  calling  of  Abraham  were,  first,  the  separation  of  the  "  sons 
of  God"  from  the  mass  of  the  world,  as  a  peculiar  people,  and 
the  organization  of  a  visible  church-state  in  the  tribe  of  Abra- 
ham ;  and  next,  the  institution  of  a  sealing  ordinance,  circum- 
cision, as  a  badge  of  membership,  and  "  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith."  The  repeated  tendency  of  the  race,  in  spite  of 
admonitions  and  judgments,  towards  apostasy  and  idolatry,  had 
at  length  made  the  necessity  of  the  visible  Church  separation 
obvious  :  it  remained  the  only  human  means  to  preserve  a  seed 
to  serve  God.  In  that  age  of  the  world,  every  organized  soci- 
ety unavoidably  took  the  patriarchal  form ;  hence  the  family, 
or  clan  of  Abraham,  became  the  visible  Church :  and  the  race- 
limit  tended  approximately  to  be  the  boundary  between  Church 
and  world.  Abraham  and  his  seed  did  indeed  receive  a  promise 
of  the  temporal  possession  of  Canaan  :  as  in  Gen.  xii  :  3  ;  xv  :  5  ; 
xvii  :  7.  But  the  spiritual  and  gospel  feature  implied  is  clear  in 
some  of  the  promises  themselves,  and  is  made  plainer  by  sub- 
sequent Scriptures.  The  best  exposition  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  is  that  given  by  Rom.  chaps,  iii  and  iv,  and  Gal.  iii. 
We  are  there  expressly  taught,  that  the  seed  in  whom  the 
promise  was  made  was  Christ :  that  the  central  benefit  received 
by  Abraham,  was  gospel  salvation  through  faith  :  that  the  sac- 
rament was  a  gospel  one,  a  seal  of  the  righteousnesss  of  faith  : 
that  the  promise  of  Canaan  was  typical  of  that  of  heaven  ; 
that  Abraham  is  the  exemplar  and  head  of  all  gospel-believers : 
and  that  the  society  founded  in  his  family  was,  and  is,  the  visi- 
ble Church  of  Christ,  reformed  and  enlarged  at  the  new  dispen- 
sation. 

The  original  meaning  of  the  bleeding  lamb  was  strikingly 
illustrated  to  Abraham  by  the  proposed  sacrifice  of  Isaac. 
This  taught,  first,  that  the  lamb  was  insuflEicient :  a  more  pre- 
cious substitute  must  be  found.  Just  at  the  crisis,  when  the 
patriarch  was  about  to  offer  his  only  son,  a  rational  victim,  God 
arrests  his  hand,  and  substitutes  the  ram  (again  a  mere  type,) 
which  He  had  provided.  Abraham  named  the  place,  m^")"* 
29* 


450  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

nin""  "Jehovah  hath  chosen,"  thus  acknowledging  that  when 

he  answered  Isaac's  question,  in  Gen,  xxii  :  8,  n^^'H,'',  D'^mT'^^. 

"  God  will  provide  Himself  a  lamb,"  he  had  (possibly  unwittingly) 
uttered  a  great,  gospel-truth ;  that  the  sinner's  real  substitute 
was  to  be  one  in  the  unknown  future,  which  God  was  to  provide, 
and  not  the  believer.  Thus,  salvation  is  to  be  gratuitous, 
though  only  through  a  divinely  constituted  substitute,  and 
man's  part  is  to  embrace  it  by  faith. 

Last,  the  compact  with  Abraham  was  summed  up  in  the 
words  :  "  I  will  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee." 
We  have  seen  that  this  was  the  formula  of  the  Covenant  of 
Grace.  Such  then,  was  God's  compact  with  the  Father  of  the 
faithful. 

And  here  we  must  pause  a  moment,  to  consider  the  ques- 
Eternal  Life  was  re>    tion    famously  debated    in  the    negative,   for 
vealed   to   the   Patri'    instance,    by  Warburton  s   Divme  Legal,   ot 
archs.  Moses  :    "  Whether  the  patriarchal  ages  had 

any  revealed  promise  of  future  eternal  life  ?  "  I  would  premise 
that  the  scantiness  of  the  teachings  on  this  point  will  not  sur- 
prise us,  if  we  remember  that  this  fundamental  truth  is  rather 
assumed  than  taught.  It  has  been  well  remarked,  that  the 
Bible  no  where  sets  itself  deliberately  to  teach  the  existence  of 
God !  We  may  well  suppose  the  traditionary  religion  received 
from  Adam  made  the  immortality  of  the  soul  and  future 
rewards,  so  clear  that  little  was  then  needed  to  be  said  about  it. 
The  bein^  of  a  God  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul  are  the 
two  postulates  essential  to  all  religion.  We  assert  then  that 
the  natural  and  proper  way  for  inspiration  to  proceed,  in  reveal- 
infT  a  religion,  is  to  postulate  these  two  truths,  and  not  to  waste 
time  in  proving  them.  The  soul's  immortality  is  as  essential 
to  the  being  of  a  religion  as  the  existence  of  God.  I  might 
prove  this  experimentally  by  the  fact,  that  materialists  are 
always  virtually  without  a  religion.  It  follows  logically;  for 
experience  concurs  with  revelation  in  showing,  that  in  this  life, 
"  the  wicked  flourish  like  the  bay  tree  ;  "  so  that,  if  the  future  life 
be  denied,  there  will  remain,  for  the  denier,  no  room  whatever 
for  the -sanctions  of  any  religion.  But  let  us  see  if  this  doctrine 
was  not  made  sufficiently  clear  to  the  patriarchs.  (It  may  be 
found  acutely  argued  in  Calv.  Inst.  bk.  ii  :  ch.  lO,  which  we 
mainly  follow). 

(a.)  They  had  promises:  The  New  Testament  expressly 
declares  these  promises  were  the  gospel.  See  Luke  i  :  69-73, 
x  :  24  ;  Rom.  iv  :  13,  &c. 

(b.)  The  patriarchs  embraced  the  promises  they  had  (be 
they  what  they  may)  with  a  religious  faith.  Who  can  dispute 
this?  It  is  too  expressly  declared  in  Heb.  ch.  xi.  But  both 
Testaments  tell  us,  that  faith  is  a  principle  of  eternal  life. 
Habak.  ii  :  4  :  Heb.  x  :  38. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  45  I 

(c.)  The  Covenant  made  with  Abraham  in  Gen.  xvii  :  7,  to 
be  a  God  to  him  and  his  seed,  imphes  the  continued  existence 
of  the  patriarch.  All  this  promise  of  a  prosperous  seed 
and  of  their  continued  relation  to  God  as  their  patron,  could 
have  had  no  interest  to  Abraham,  and  could  have  been  no  boon 
to  him,  if  he  was  doomed  to  extinction.  Besides,  as  this  prom- 
ise is  expounded  in  the  Pentateuch  itself,  and  more  fully  in 
subsequent  Scriptures,  it  is  the  eternity  of  God,  which  makes 
the  covenant  so  great  a  privilege.  See  Deut.  xxxiii  :  27,  and 
Ps.  xvi  :  5  and  end,  and  xlviii  :  14.  What  interest  would  a 
party  doomed  to  early  extinction  have  in  the  eternity  of  his 
benefactor  ?  ^ 

(d.)  Our  Saviour's  argument,  m  Matt,  xxii  :  32-34,  is 
founded  on  Exod.  iii  :  6.  "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living."  The  peculiar  appropriateness  of  this  refuta- 
tion of  Sadduceeism  is  seen  in  this  :  That  they  are  said  to  have 
admitted  only  they  inspiration  of  the  Pentateuch :  and  hence 
Christ  goes  for  His  proof-text  to  that  code  and  not  to  any 
later  revelation.  Materialists  as  they  were,  they  gloried  pro- 
fessedly in  the  national  covenant  with  God,  (as  ensuring  earthly 
privilege).  Christ  therefore  cites  them  to  the  familiar  terms  of 
that  covenant,  as  of  itself  containing  enough  to  show,  that  the 
doctrine  of  immortality  is  its  very  foundation.  It  is  as  though 
He  said  to  them,  tliat  it  was  unnecessary  to  contend  about  the 
authority  of  the  later  prophets,  who  confessedly  say  so  much 
about  immortality.  He  can  find  abundant  refutation  in  that 
most  familiar  formula,  which  was  in  everybody's  mouth.  The 
subsistence  in  Moses'  day  of  a  covenant  relation  with  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  implies  the  continued  existence  of  those 
parties.  And  as  the  parties  were  not  ghosts,  but  incarnate 
men,  when  the  everlasting  God  bargained  with  them ;  it  is 
implied  that  His  power,  of  which  the  Sadducees  had  no  proper 
idea,  would  restore  them  by  a  bodily  resurrection  to  that  state. 

(e.)  If  the  promise  to  the  patriarchs  were  only  of  tempo- 
ral good,  it  was  never  fulfilled  ;  for  they  were  strangers  and 
pilgrims  in  the  very  land  promised  them. 

(f.)  Their  dying  exercises  pointed  to  an  immortality.  Heb. 
xi  :  16  tells  us  that  they  sought  a  better  country,  even  a  heav- 
enly. This  is  borne  out  as  a  fact,  by  such  passages  as  Gen. 
xlix  :  18,  and  33,  and  Numb,  xxiii :  10. 

When  we  resort  to  the  New  Testament  we  find  many  evi- 
dences, that  its  writers  regarded  the  Old  Testament  as  contain- 
ing the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  the  doctrine  of  immortality,  in 
all  its  parts.  Two  passages  may  be  cited,  as  specimens.  In 
Jno.  V  :  39,  our  Lord  says  to  the  Jews,  "  Search  the  Scriptures  " 
(the  Old  Testament),  "  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life, 
and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me."  In  Acts  xxiv  :  14,  15. 
Paul,  when  pleading  before  Felix,  declared  that  he  believed  "  all 
things  which  are  written  in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets,  and  had 


452  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

hope  towards  God,  which  they  themselves  also  allow,  that  there 
shall  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead." 


LECTURE  XXXVIII. 

COVENANT  OF  GRACE.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

5.  What  farther  developments  of   the  Covenant  of   Grace  were  made  by  the 
Mosaic  Economy  ?  ■>, 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xii,  Qu.  7,  §  24-26.  Witsius,  bk.  iii,  ch.  3  ;  bk.  iv,  ch.  4. 
Ridgeley,  Qu.  33,  34,  g  i.     Knapp,  §  90,  91. 

6.  What  was  the  true  nature  of  the  Covenant  made  by  God  with  Israel  at  Sinai, 
through  Moses  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  12.  Calvin,  bk.  ii,  ch.  7,  10.  Witsius  as  above,  and  bk.  iv,  ch. 
10.     Ridgeley,  Qu.  34,  35. 

7.  How  do  the  Old  and  New  Dispensations  differ  inter  se  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  7,  §  27  to  end,  and  Qu.  28.  Calvin,  bk.  ii,  ch.  10,  11.  Wit- 
sius, bk.  iv,  ch.  12,  13.     Ridgeley,  Qu.  34,  35. 

8.  Do   the  Scriptures   teach   a  Limbus  Patrum  9    And   were  Old   Testament 
believers  glorified  at  their  death  or  not? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  10,  II ;  Qu.  9,  g  i-ii.  Knapp,  §  150.  Catech.  Rom.,  pt.  i, 
ch.  6,  Qu.  1-6.  Knapp,  §  96.  Witsius,  bk.  iv,  ch.  12,  On  the  whole  Fair- 
bairn's  Typology. 

ZOOMING  now  to  the  last  stage  of  the  old  dispensation,  the 

^^   Covenant  of  Sinai,  we  find  several  marked  and  impressive 

additions    to    the    former  revelations.      But 

5.  Additions  at  Smai.    ^^^^  ^^jj^  ^^  ^^  ^^^^^  ^^^j^^^  developments 

of  existing  features  of  the  gospel,  than  new  elements.  These 
traits  were,  chiefly  the  republication  of  the  moral  Law  with 
every  adjunct  of  majesty  and  authority,  the  establishment  of  a 
Theocratic  State-Church,  in  place  of  simpler  patriarchal  forms, 
.with  fully  detailed  civic  institutions,  the  Passover,  a  new  sacra- 
ment ;  and  the  great  development  of  the  sacrificial  ritual. 

The  Covenant  of  Sinai  has  seemed  to  many  to  wear  such 
The    Covenant    of    3-"  aspect    of  legality,  that    they    have   sup- 
Sinai  not  a  Covenant    posed  themselves  constrained  to  regard  it  as  a 
of  Works.  species  of  Covenant  of  Works  ;  and,  there- 

fore a  recession  from  the  Abrahamic  Covenant,  which,  we  are 
expressly  told,  (John  viii  :  56  ;  Gal.  iii  :  8,)  contained  the  gospel. 
Now,  it  is  one  objection,  that  this  view,  making  two  distinct  dis- 
pensations between  Adam  and  Christ,  and  the  first  a  dispen- 
sation of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  the  one  which  came 
after,  of  the  Covenant  of  Works,  is  a  priori,  unreasonable.  For, 
it  is  unreasonable  in  this  :  that  it  is  a  recession,  instead  of  a 
progress ;  whereas  every  consistent  idea  of  the  plan  of  Reve- 
lation makes  it  progressive.  It  is  unreasonable  ;  because  both 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  represent  the  Sinai  Covenant  as  a 
signal  honour  and  privilege  to  Israel.  But  they  also  represent  the 
Covenant  of  Works  as  inevitably  a  covenant  of  death  to  man 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  453 

after  the  Fall;  so  that  had  the  transactions  of  Sinai  been  a 
regression  from  the  "  Gospel  preached  before  unto  Abraham," 
to  a  Covenant  of  Works,  it  would  have  been  a  most  signal  curse 
poured  out  on  the  chosen  people.  The  attempt  is  made  to 
evade  this,  by  saying  that,  while  eternal  life  to  the  Hebrews 
was  now  suspended  on  a  covenant  of  works,  they  were  ritual 
works  only,  in  which  an  exact  formal  compliance  was  all  that 
was  required.  This  is  untenable  ;  because  it  is  inconsistent 
with  God's  spiritual  and  unchangeable  character,  and  with  His 
honour ;  and  because  the  Mosaic  Scriptures  are  as  plain  as  the 
New  Testament  in  disclaiming  the  sufficiency  of  an  exact  ritual 
righteousness,  as  the  term  of  eternal  life,  and  in  requiring  a  per- 
fect, spiritual  obedience.  If  a  ritual  obedience  was  accepted 
instead  of  a  spiritual  one,  that  was  an  act  of  grace — a  remis- 
sion of  the  claims  of  laws — so  that  the  Mosaic  turns  out  a  dis- 
pensation of  grace,  after  all.  But  grace  was  preached  to  Abel, 
Noah,  Abraham,  in  a  prior  dispensation,  through  a  Mediator  to 
come.  Now,  through  what  medium  was  this  gracious  remission 
of  law  given  to  Israel,  at  Sinai  ?  The  answer  we  give  is  so 
consistent,  that  it  appears  self-evident,  almost :  That  it  was 
through  the  same  Christ  to  come,  already  preached  to  the  Patri- 
archs, and  now  typified  in  the  Levitical  sacrifices.  So  that  the 
theory  I  combat  resolves  itself,  in  spite  of  itself,  as  it  were,  into 
the  correct  theory,  viz  :  That  the  promise  contained  in  the  Cove- 
nant of  Sinai  was  through  the  Mediator,  typified  in  the  Leviti- 
cal sacrifices;  and  that  the  term  for  enjoying  that  promise  was 
not  legal,  not  an  exact  ritual  obedience,  but  gospel  faith  in  the 
antitype. 

The  French  divines,  Camero  and  Amgraut,  proposed  an 
ingenious  modification  of  the  legal  theory  of  Moses'  covenant : 
That  in  it  a  certain  kind  of  life  was  proposed  (as  in  the  Cove- 
nant of  Works,)  as  a  reward  for  an  exact  obedience  :  But  that 
the  life  was  temporal,  in  a  prosperous  Canaan,  and  the  obedi- 
ence was  ritual.  This  is  true,  so  far  as  a  visible  church-standing 
turned  on  a  ritual  obedience.  But  to  the  Hebrew,  that  tempo- 
ral life  in  happy  Canaan  was  a  type  of  heaven  ;  which  was  not 
promised  to  an  exact  moral  obedience,  but  to  faith.  Were  this 
theory  modified,  so  as  to  represent  this  dependence  of  the  He- 
brew's church-standing  on  his  ritual  obedience,  as  a  mere  type 
and  emblem  of  the  law's  spiritual  work  as  a  "  schoolmaster  to 
lead  us  to  Christ,"  it  might  stand. 

But  let  us  proceed  to  a  more  exact  examination.  We  find 
that  the  transactions  at  Sinai  included  the 
Additions  at  Sinai.  foii^^ying  :  (a)  A  republication  of  the  Moral 
Law,  with  greatest  majesty  and  authority,  (b)  An  expansion 
of  the  Ritual  of  the  typical  service,  with  the  addition  of  a 
second  sacrament,  the  passover.  (c)  The  change  of  the  visible 
Church  instituted  in  Gen.  17th,  into  a  theocratic  Commonwealth- 
Church — both  in   one.     (d)    The  legal  conditions   of   outward 


454  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

good-standing  were  made  more  burdensome  and  exacting  than 
they  had  been  before.  This  last  feature  was  not  a  novelty,  (See 
Gen.  xvii  :  14,)  but  it  was  made  more  stringent. 

Can  the  designs  of  these  modifications  be  explained  con- 
sistently with  our  view?  Yes.  As  to  the 
leir    esigns.  theocratic  state,  this  was  necessitated  by  the 

numbers  of  the  Church,  which  had  outgrown  the  family  state 
—  and  needed  temporal  institutions  capable  of  still  larger 
growth,  even  into  a  grand  nation.  The  amplified  ritual  was 
designed  to  foreshadow  the  approaching  Christ,  and  the  promi- 
ses of  the  Covenant  more  fully.  Next :  The  legal  conditions 
for  retaining  outward  ecclesiastical  privileges  were  made  more 
stringent,  in  order  to  enable  the  Law  to  fulfil  more  energeti- 
cally the  purpose  for  which  St.  Paul  says  it  was  added,  to  be  a 
paedagogue  to  lead  to  Christ.  (See  Gal.  iii  ;  19,  22).  For  this 
stringency  was  designed  to  be,  to  the  Israelite,  a  perpetual 
reminder  of  the  law  which  was  to  Adam,  the  condition  of  life, 
now  broken,  and  its  wrath  already  incurred,  thus  to  hedge  up 
the  awakened  conscience  to  Christ.  This  greater  urgency  was 
made  necessary  by  the  sinfulness  of  the  Church  and  its  ten- 
dencies to  apostacy,  with  the  seductions  of  Paganism  now 
general  in  the  rest  of  mankind. 

The  passover,  a  peculiarly  gospel  sacrament,  was  added,  to 
illustraie  the  way  of  salvation  by  faith,  upon  occasion  of  the 
exodus  and  deliverance  of  the  first-born.  The  captivity  in 
Egypt  was  an  emblem  of  man's  bondage  under  the  curse  ;  and 
the  dreadful  death  of  the  first-born,  of  the  infliction  of  the  sen- 
tence. The  Hebrews  escape  that  doom,  by  substituting  a 
sacrifice  ;  which  is  a  type  of  Christ.  (See  Jno.  i  :  36  ;  i  Cor. 
V  :  7).  But  the  saved  family  then  eat  that  victim,  thus  signify- 
ing the  appropriating  act  of  faith,  very  much  as  is  done  in  the 
commemorative  sacrament  of  the  Supper  now. 

The  followers  of  Cocceius  and  his  school  have  texts  which, 
6.  Moses'  Dispen-  '^^  admit,  bear  plausibly  against  our  identifi- 
sation  same  in  sub-  cation  of  the  Mosaic  and  Abrahamic  dispen- 
stance  as  Abraham's,  sations.  They  point  US,  not  only  to  the  nume- 
rous places  in  the  Pentateuch  which  seem  to  say,  like  Levit. 
xviii  :  5,  "  Do,  and  live  ;"  but  to  such  passages  as  Jer.  xxxi  : 
32,  which  seems  to  say  that  the  Covenant  of  Grace  is  "  not 
according  to  the  covenant  made  the  fathers  in  the  day  God  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 
So,  they  urge  Jno.  i  :  17  :  Gal.  iii  :  12  ;  Rom.  x  :  5  ;  Gal.  iv  : 
25  ;  Heb.  viii  :  7-13  ;  ix  :  8  ;  ii  :  3.  (The  new  covenant  "began 
to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord,"  and  so,  must  not  antedate  the  Chris- 
tian era),  vii  :  18,  and  such  like  passages. 

But,  notwithstanding  this  array,  there  are  preponderating, 
even  irresistible  arguments  for  the  other  side.  And  first,  we 
urge  the  general  consideration  that  the  Bible  never  speaks  of 
more  than  two  Covenants  :  that  of  the  Law,  or  Works,  and  that 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  455 

of  Grace.  The  dispensations  also  are  but  two,  "  the  first  and 
the  second  ;"  the  "  new  and  the  old."  But  if  Moses'  dispen- 
sation was  a  legal  one  in  essence,  then  we  must  have  three  ; 
for  Abraham's  was  doubtless  a  gracious  one.  We  add,  that 
there  are  but  two  imaginable  ways  ;  and  but  two  known  to 
Scripture  ;  "  grace"  and  "  works,"  by  which  a  soul  can  win 
adoption  of  life.  The  latter,  the  Scriptures  declare  to  be  utterly 
impracticable  after  man's  fall.  Since  the  Israelites  were  fallen 
men,  if  their  covenant  was  not  gracious,  it  was  only  a  condemn- 
ing one.  Its  result  was  only  their  destruction.  But,  second, 
the  latter  conclusion  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that 
God  covenanted  with  them  at  Sinai,  in  mercy,  and  not  in  judi- 
cial wrath  :  as  their  redeemer  and  deliverer,  and  not  as  their 
•destroyer.  This  transaction,  whatever  it  was,  was  proposed  and 
accepted  as  a  privilege,  not  a  curse.  Exod.  xix  :  5  ;  xx  :  2  ; 
xxxiv  :  6,  y  \  Ps.  Ixxviii  :  35.  For,  third,  the  compact  of 
Sinai  included  all  the  essential  parties  and  features,  and  adopted 
the  very  formula,  which  we  have  seen  were  characteristic  of  the 
Covenant  of  Grace.  On  the  one  side  was  God,  transacting  with 
them,  not  as  Proprietor  and  Judge,  but,  as  beneficent  Father. 
On  the  other  side  was  the  people,  amass  chosen  in  their  sin  and 
unworthiness.  See  Ezek.  xvi  :  3-6  ;  Ps.  cix  :  21  ;  Is.  xxxvii  : 
35.  Between  these  parties  was  Moses,  as  a  Mediator,  the  most 
eminent  type  of  Christ  in  the  whole  history.  And  the  compact 
is  ratified  in  the  very  terms  of  the  covenant  of  Grace.  "  I  will 
be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  (See  Levit.  xxvi  : 
'12;  Jer.  xi :  4 ;  xxx  :  22).  Fourth  :  I  borrow  the  argument  of  the 
Apostle  from  Gal.  iii :  17  ;  fidelity  to  the  bond  already  contracted 
with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  forbade  the  after  formation  of  a 
different  compact  with  them.  The  last  testament  is  valid  in  law 
against  the  previous  ones,  but  the  first  bond  excludes  subse- 
quent contracts  of  an  inconsistent  tenour.  This  is  powerfully 
confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  Moses,  in  confirming  the  Sinai-Cove- 
nant with  Israel,  tells  them  more  than. once,  that  they  enter  it 
as  Abraham's  seed.  Deut.  vii  :  8,  9,  12  ;  Exod.  iii  :  6,  7.  Com- 
pare Ps.  cv :  6  ;  Isaiah  xli :  8.  This  shows  that,  whatever  the  cove- 
nant with  Abraham  was,  that  with  Israel  was  a  renewal  of  it. 
Fifth  :  The  very  "  book  of  the  testimony,"  and  all  the  utensils  of 
the  sanctuary  were  purified  with  blood  ;  as  we  are  taught  in  Heb. 
ix  :  18-23.  Why  all  this?  The  Apostle  says  it  was  to  fore- 
shadow the  truth,  that  Christ's  blood  must  be  the  real  propitiation 
carried,  for  sinners,  into  the  upper  sanctuary.  Our  opponents 
would  agree  with  us,  that  the  sacrifices  of  the  altar  were  the 
most  notable  features  of  the  Levitical  dispensation.  But  we  are 
taught  that  these  all  pointed  to  Christ,  the  true  priest  and 
victim.  Heb.  ix  :  23,  &c.,  tells  us  that  this  great  feature,  that 
"without  the  shedding  of  blood  was  no  remission,"  was  to  hold 
up  the  grand  truth  of  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  for  guilt  by 
Christ's  blood.     Thus,  the  more  Levitical  sacrifices  we  find,  the 


456  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

more  Gospel  do  we  find.  Sixth  :  Men  feel  driven  to  the  con- 
clusion we  combat,  they  say,  by  the  re-enactment  of  the  law. 
But  the  law,  both  moral  and  ritual,  was  in  force  under  Abra- 
ham.    See  Rom.  v  :  13,  14  ;  Gen.  xvii  :  14. 

Seventh  :  Both  the  moral,  and  a  (less  burdensome)  ritual 
law  are  still  binding,  in  the  same  sense,  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment dispensation,  (See  Matt,  v:  17;  Jno.  iii. :  5  ;  Mark  xvi : 
16.)  Surely  the  New  Testament  is  not  therefore  a  Covenant  of 
Works !  Last,  Christ  expressly  says,  that  Moses  taught  of 
Him.  Lukexxiv:27;  Jno.  v  :  46.  Moses  must  then,  have 
taught  the  Gospel.  And  in  Rom.  x  :  6,  the  inspired  expositor, 
when  he  would  state  the  plan  of  salvation  by  grace  through 
faith,  in  express  contrast  to  the  Covenant  of  Works  (as  stated 
iu  Levit.  xviii :  5,  for  instance)  borrows  the  very  words  of 
Moses'  Covenant  with  Israel  from  Deut.  xxx  :  11.  Does  he 
abuse  the  sense  ? 

,To  remove  the  cavil  founded  on  each  text  quoted  agamst 
us,  by  a  detailed  exposition,  would  consume  too  much  space. 
It  is  not  necessary.  By  discussing  one  of  the  strongest  of  them, 
we  shall  sufficiently  suggest  the  clue  to  all.  The  most  plausi- 
ble objection  is  that  drawn  from  Jer.  xxxi  :  32,  where  the 
prophet  seems  to  assert  an  express  opposition  between  the 
new  covenant,  which  Heb.  vii,  indisputably  explains  as  the  Cov- 
enant of  Grace,  and  that  made  with  Israel  at  the  Exodus. 
There  is  unquestionably,  a  difference  asserted  here ;  and  it  is 
the  difference  between  law  and  grace.  But  it  is  the  Covenant 
of  Sinai  viewed  in  one  of  its  limited  aspects  only,  which  is  here 
set  in  antithesis  to  the  Covenant  of  Grace :  It  is  the  secular 
theocratic  covenant,  in  which  political  and  temporal  prosperity 
in  Canaan  was  promised,  and  calamity  threatened,  on  the  con- 
ditions of  theocratic  obedience  or  rebellion.  The  justice  and 
relevancy  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah's,  and  of  the  apostle's  logic, 
in  selecting  this  aspect  of  the  Sinai  Covenant  to  display,  by 
contrast,  the  grace  of  the  new  covenant,  are  seen  in  this :  that 
self-righteous  Jews,  throwing  away  all  the  gracious  features  of 
their  national  compact,  and  thus  perverting  its  real  nature, 
were  founding  all  their  pride  and  hopes  on  this  secular  feature. 
The  prophet  points  out  to  them  that  the  fate  of  the  nation, 
under  that  theocratic  bond,  had  been  disaster  and  ruin  ;  and 
this,  because  the  people  had  ever  been  too  perverse  to  comply 
with  its  legal  terms,  especially,  inasmuch  as  God  had  left  them  to 
their  own  strength.  But  the  spiritual  covenant  was  to  differ  (as 
it  always  had),  in  this  vital  respect :  that  God,  while  covenant- 
ing with  His  people  for  their  obedience,  would  make  it  His  part 
to  write  His  law  in  their  hearts.  Thus  He  would  Himself 
graciously  ensure  their  continuance  in  faith  and  obedience. 
Witsius  happily  confirms  this  view,  by  remarking  that,  in  all  the 
places  where  the  secular,  theocratic  compact  is  stated,  as  a  Cov- 
cnnnt  of   Works,  we  see    no  pledge  on  God's  part,  that  He 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  45/ 

*'  will  circumcise  their  hearts,"  as  in  Deut.  xxx  :  6.  There,  the 
ensuing  compact  is  interpreted  by  St.  Paul  (Rom.  x  :  6,)  as  the 
Covenantor  Grace.  So,  in  Jer.  xxxi :  33,  34.  God  engages 
graciously  to  work  in  His  elect  people  the  holy  affections  and 
principles,  which  will  embrace,  and  cleave  to  the  promise. 
But  in  all  such  places  as  Levit.  xviii :  5  ;  Jer,  xxxi:  29;  Ezek. 
xviii,  the  duties  required  are  secular,  and  the  good  gained  or 
forfeited  is  national.  In  truth,  the  transaction  of  God  with 
Israel  was  two-fold :  it  had  its  shell,  and  its  kernel ;  its  body, 
and  its  spirit ;  its  type,  and  its  antitype.  The  corporate,  theo- 
cratic, political  nation  was  the  shell :  the  elect  seed  were  the 
kernel.  See  Rom.  chaps,  x  and  xi.  The  secular  promise  was 
the  type  :  the  spiritual  promise  of  redemption  through  Christ 
was  the  antitype.  The  law  was  added  as  "a.  schoolmaster,"  to 
bring  God's  true  people,  the  spiritual  seed  mixed  in  the  out- 
ward body,  to  Christ.  This  law  the  carnal  abused,  as  they  do 
now,  by  the  attempt  to  establish  their  own  righteousness  under  it. 
A  correct  view  of  the  nature  of  that  display  made  of  the 
7.  Differences  of  Covenant  of  Grace  in  the  Old  Dispensation, 
Old  Dispensation  from  will  be  gained  by  comparing  it  with  the  New, 
•  All  orthodox  writers  agree  that  there  is  both 

law  and  gospel  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  If,  by  the 
Old  Testament  Covenant,  is  understood  only  that  legal  covenant 
of  moral  and  ceremonial  works,  then  there  will  indeed  be 
ground  for  all  the  strong  contrast,  when  it  is  compared  with  the 
Gospel  in  the  New  Testament,  which  some  writers  draw  between 
the  severity  and  terror  of  the  one,  and  the  grace  of  the  other. 
But  in  our  comparison,  we  shall  be  understood  as  comparing 
the  Old  Dispensation  with  the  New,  taken  with  all  their  fea- 
tures, as  two  wholes.  We  find  Turrettin  (Ques.  8,  §  18,  25), 
makes  them  differ  in  their  date  or  time,  in  their  clearness,  in 
their  facility  of  observance,  in  their  mildness,  in  their  perfec- 
tion, in  their  liberty,  in  their  amplitude,  and  in  their  perpetuity. 
Calvin  (B.  2,  ch.  ii,)  finds  five  differences:  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment promises  eternal  life  typically  under  figures  of  Canaan, 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  mainly  typical,  that  it  is  literal  (while 
the  New  Testament  is  spiritual)  that  it  gendered  to  bondage, 
and  that  it  limited  its  benefits  to  one  nation. 

I  am  persuaded  that  the  strong  representations  which  these 

^,      ^, ,  ,     writers  (and  most  others  following  them,)  and. 

The    Old  too  much  ,  ,1         ^  .  ,        ,.  '       ^    ' 

Depreciated.  Y^^  more,  the    Cocceian  school,  give   of  the 

bondage,  terror,  literalness,  and  intolerable 
weight  of  the  institutions  under  which  Old  Testament  saints 
lived,  will  strike  the  attentive  reader  as  incorrect.  The  expe- 
rience, as  recorded  of  those  saints,  does  not  answer  to  this 
theory  ;  but  shows  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  dispensation 
free,  spiritual,  gracious,  consoling.  I  ask  emphatically :  does 
not  the  New  Testament  Christian  of  all  ages,  go  to  the 
recorded   experiences  of  those  very  Old  Testament  saints,  for 


458  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  most  happy  and  glowing  expressions  in  which  to  utter  his 
hope,  gratitude,  spiritual  joy?  Is  it  said  that  these  are  the 
experiences  of  eminent  saints,  who  had  this  full  joy  (even  as 
compared  to  New  Testament  saints)  not  because  the  published 
truth  was  equal  to  that  now  given :  but  because  they  had  higher 
spiritual  discernment?  I  reply:  By  nature  they  were  just  like 
"  us,  sinners  of  the  gentiles ;  "  so  that  if  they  had  more  spiritual 
discernment,  it  must  be  because  there  was  a  freer  and  fuller  dis- 
pensation of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  them  than  to  us.  (Much  fuller  ! 
to  repair  all  defect  of  means,  and  more  than  bring  them  to  a 
level.)  But  this  overthrows  Calvin's  idea  of  the  dispensation  as 
a  less  liberal  one.  Or,  is  it  pleaded  that  these  are  only  the 
inspired,  and  therefore  exceptional  cases  of  the  Old  Testament 
Church  ?  I  answer  :  Did  not  God  give  the  inspired  experien- 
ces as  appropriate  models  for  those  of  their  brethren?  These 
distorted  representations  have  been  produced  by  the  seeming 
force  of  such  passages  as  Jno.  i  :  17;  2  Cor.  iii  :  6,  7;  Gal.  iii  : 
19,  2j;  iv  :  I,  4  and  24-26  ;  Heb.  viii  :  8;  Acts  xv  :  10.  But 
the  scope  and  circumstances  of  the  Apostles,  in  making 
such  statements,  are  greatly  overlooked.  They  were  arguing, 
for  the  gospel  plan,  against  self-righteous  Jews,  who  had  per- 
versely cast  away  the  gospel  significance  out  of  the  Mosaic 
institutions  to  which  they  clung,  and  who  retained  only  the 
condemning  features  of  those  institutions ;  vainly  hoping  to 
make  a  righteousness  out  of  compliance  with  a  law,  whose  very 
intent  was  to  remind  men  that  they  could  make  no  righteous- 
ness for  themselves.  Hence  we  must  always  remember  that 
the  Apostles  are  using,  to  a  certain  extent,  an  argumciituin  ad 
honiineni :  they  are  speaking  of  the  Mosaic  institutions  under 
the  Jewish  view  of  them.  They  are  treating  of  that  side 
or  aspect,  which  alone  the  perverse  Jew  retained  of  them. 
Here  is  the  key. 

The  truth  is,  both  dispensations  are  precisely  alike,  in  hav- 
ing two  sides  to  them  :  a  law  which  condemns 

The  New  Testament    those  who  will  persist  in  self-righteous  plans; 
Laniruasje  as  to  it  bx-  ,  i  i  •    i  ^i         111 

plained.  New  Testa-  and  a  gospei  which  rescues  the  humble 
ment  also  a  Uispensa-  believer  from  that  condemnation.  The  obli- 
Rit"ua'iist'^°"'^''^^  ^°  gation  of  Works,  (which  was  reenacted  in  the 
Decalogue,)  is  perpetual,  being  founded  on  the 
very  relations  between  man  and  God,  on  all  except  those  who 
are  exempted  from  it  by  the  substitutionary  righteouness  of  the 
Mediator.  It  is  of  force  now,  on  all  others.  It  thunders  just  as 
it  did  in  Eden  and  on  Sinai.  Nor,  I  beg  you  to  note,  is  the 
Old  Testament  singular,  in  enjoining  a  ritual  law,  which  is  also 
"the  letter  that  killeth,"  a  "carnal  ordinance,"  a  "ministration 
of  death,"  to  those  who  perversely  refuse  to  be  pointed  by  it  to 
the  Messiah,  and  who  try  to  make  a  self-righteouness  out  of  it. 
The  New  Testament  also  has  its  sacraments ;  all  are  com- 
manded to  partake,  yet  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh,   not  dis- 


OF   LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  459 

cerning  the  Lord's  body,  "eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to 
himself;"  and  he  that  takes  the  water  of  Baptism  self-right- 
eously,  only  sees  therein  a  terrible  symbol  of  his  need  of  a 
cleansing  which  he  does  not  receive.  Let  an  evangelical  Chris- 
tian imagine  himself  instructing  and  refuting  a  modern  Ritualist 
of  the  school  of  Rome  or  the  Tractarians.  He  would  find 
himself  necessarily  employing  an  arguinenttmi  ad  hoininem  pre- 
cisely like  that  of  Paul  against  the  Pharisees.  The  evangelical 
believer  would  be  forced  to  distinguish  between  the  legal  or 
condemning,  and  the  gospel  side  of  our  ow^n  sacraments;  and 
he  would  proceed  to  show,  that  by  attempting  to  make  a  self- 
righteousness  out  of  those  sacraments,  the  modern  Pharisee  was 
going  back  under  a  dispensation  of  condemnation  and  bondage; 
that  he  was  throwing  away  'the  spirit  which  giveth  life,'  and 
retaining  only  the  'letter  that  killeth.' 

The  New  Testament  has  also  its  sacrifice ;  the  one  sacrifice 
of  Christ;  and  to  him  who  rejects  the  pardon  which  it  pur- 
chased, it  is  a  ministry  of  damnation,  more  emphatic  than  all 
the  blood  of  beasts  could  utter.  Both  dispensations  have  their 
"letter  that  killeth,"  as  well  as  their  "spirit  that  giveth  life," 
their  Sinai  as  well  as  their  Zion.  And  in  the  very  place  alluded 
to,  it  is  the  killing  letter  of  the  New  Testament  of  which  Paul 
speaks,  2  Cor  iii :  6.  Besides  in  the  Old  Testament  no  part  of 
the  ritual  could  be  more  crushing  than  the  moral  command- 
ment "exceeding  broad,"  is  to  the  unrenewed.  But  see  Matt. 
v:  17-20. 

Again,  the  Old  Testament  distinguished  both  as  to  its 
word,  and  its  ordinances,  between  this  letter  that  killeth  and  this 
spirit  that  giveth  life.  Deut.  X :  12;  Ps.  1:  16,  17,  22  and  23; 
Prov.  xxi :  3  ;  i  Samuel  XV  :  22  ;  Ps.  li :  16,  17  ;  Isa.  i:    13-20   &c. 

Now  just  as  the  Christian  minister  would  argue  with  a 
nominal  Christian  who  persisted  in  making  a  righteousness  out 
of  the  sacraments,  so  the  Apostles  argued  with  the  Jews,  who 
persisted  in  making  a  righteousness  out  of  their  ritual.  Thus 
abused,  the  ritual  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New  loses 
its  gracious  side,  and  only  retains  its  condemning.  Peter  says. 
Acts  XV  :  10 ,  the  ritual  was  a  yoke  which  neither  Jews  nor  their 
fathers  were  able  to  bear.  Did  God  signalize  His  favour  to  His 
chosen  people  by  imposing  an  intolerable  ritual?  Is  it  true 
that  well  disposed  Jews  could  not  bear  it  ?  See  Luke  i :  6  ; 
Phil,  iii :  6.  No:  Peter  has  in  view  the  ritual  used  in  that  self- 
righteous  sense,  in  which  the  Judaizing  Christians  regarded  it 
while  desiring  to  impose  it  on  Gentiles.  As  a  rule  of  justifi- 
cation it  would  be  intolerable.  The  decalogue  (2  Cor.  iii :  7) 
would  be  a  ministration  of  death  to  him  who  persisted  to  use 
it  as  these  Jews  did.  But  Moses  gave  it  as  only  one  side,  one 
member  of  his  dispensation,  "to  be  a  schoolmaster  to  lead  us 
to  Christ."  Gal.  iii:  16  speaks  of  a  law  given  430  years  after 
the  Convenant  of  Grace,  and  seeming  to  be  contrasted.     But  it 


460  SYLLABUS    AKD    NOTES 

"could  not  disannul  it."  Did  not  Abraham's  Covenant  of 
Grace  survive  this  law,  as  much  in  the  ante-Christian,  as  in  the 
post-Christian  times  ? 

Calvin  says,  as  I  conceive,  perverting  the  sense  of  Gal.  4th, 
that  the  time  of  bondage,  in  which  "the  heir 
Gal.  3d  and  4th  Ex-  (jiffgred  nothing  from  the  slave,"  was  the  time 
of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  while  the  time  of 
liberation  was  the  time  of  the  "Christian  dispensation.  Not  so. 
As  to  the  visible  Church  collectively,  and  its  outward  or  eccle- 
siastical privilege,  this  was  true ;  but  not  as  to  individual 
believers  in  the  Church.  And  this  distinction  satisfies  the 
Apostle's  scope  in  Gal.  3d  and  4th,  and  Heb.  viii :  7,  8,  and 
reconciles  Avith  passages  about  to  be  quoted,  [cf.  Turrettin  on 
Heb.  ix:  8,  Que.  ii,  §  14.]  Was  David  still  in  bondage,  "  dif 
fering  nothing  from  that  of  a  slave,"  when  he  sung  Ps.  xxxii : 
i,  2,  cxvi :  16?  The  time  of  tutelage  was,  to  each  soul,  the  time 
of  his  self-righteous,  unbelieving,  convicted,  but  unhumbled 
struggles.  The  time  of  the  liberty  is,  when  he  has  flown  to 
Christ.  This,  whether  he  was  Israelite  or  Christian.  Isaac, 
says  another,  symbolized  the  gospel  believer,  Ishmael,  the 
Hebrew.  Were  not  Isaac  and  Ishmael  cotemporary  ?  Inter- 
pret the  allegory  consistently.  And  was  it  not  Isaac,  who  was, 
not  allegorically,  but  literally  and  actually,  the  Hebrew,  the  sub- 
ject of  an  Old  Testament  dispensation,  a  ritual  dispensation,  a 
typical  one,  only  differing  from  the  Mosaic  in  details  ?  This 
would  be  to  represent  the  Apostle  as  making  a  bungling  alle- 
gory, indeed,  to  choose  the  man  who  was  actually  under  the 
dispensation  of  bondage,  as  the  type  of  the  liberty,  had  St. 
Paul  intended  to  prove  that  the  Old  Dispensation  was  a  bond- 
age. And  it  would  be  bungling  logic,  again,  to  represent  the 
spiritual  liberty  to  which  he  wished  to  lead  his  hearers,  by 
sonship  to  Abraham,  if  Abraham  were  the  very  head,  with 
whom  the  dispensation  of  bondage  was  formed !  St.  Paul 
warns  the  foolish  Galatians  who  "  desired  to  be  under  the  law." 
"  Do  ye  not  hear  the  law?"  (Gal.  iv:  21.)  The  thing  which 
the  law  says  to  such  self-righteous  fools,  is  read  in  Gal.  iii :  10. 
"  As  many  as  are  of  the  works  of  the  law  are  under  the  curse," 
&c.  St.  Paul's  allegory  says  that  Ishmael's  mother  (the  type 
of  the  soul  in  bondage)  represents  Sinai,  and  Sinai  again,  "  The 
Jerusalem  which  now  is."  Sarah,  then,  represents  what  ?  "The 
Jerusalem  which  is  above,  and  is  free."  Which  of  these  answereth 
to  King  David's  Zion'  "the  city  of  the  great  King,  in  whose  palaces 
God  is  known  as  a  Refuge"  ?  (Ps.  xlviii :  3, 4.)  Obviously,  Sarah 
and  her  children.  But  the  Pharisees  of  the  Apostle's  day 
claimed  to  be  the  heirs  of  that  very  Zion,  and  did  literally  and 
geographically  inhabit  it !  How  is  this?  They  were  in  form 
the  free-woman's  heirs — in  fact,  bastards.  And  they  had  dis- 
inherited themselves,  by  casting  away  the  gospel,  and  selecting 
the  legal  significance  of  the  transactions   of    Sinai.       The  Sinai 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  46 1 

which  now  anwsereth  to  the  bond-woman  is  not  the  Sinai  of  Mo- 
ses, of  Jehovah,  and  of  Abraham  ;  but  the  Sinai  of  the  legaHst, 
the  Sinai  which  the  Pharisee  insisted  on  having. 

You  will  not  understand  me  as  asserting  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament dispensation  was  as  well  adapted  to 
Yet  the  Old  Neces-    ^j-^g   pursposes   of  redemption    as    the    New. 

sanly  Inferior.  .   ^  1  i    ,  •  1 

ihis  would  be  m  the  teeth  of  Heb.  vni  : 
7,  &c.  The  inferior  clearness,  fullness,  and  liberality  result 
necessarily  from  the  fact  that  it  preceded  .Christ's  com- 
ing in  the  flesh.  The  visible  Church,  in  its  collective  capacity, 
was  as  to  its  outward  means  and  privileges,  in  a  state  of  minority 
and  pupilage.  But  every  true  believer  in  it  looked  forward  by 
faith,  through  that  very  condition  of  inferiority,  to  the  blessings 
covenanted  to  him  in  the  coming  Messiah ;  so  that  his  soul, 
individually,  was  not  in  a  state  of  minority  or  bondage ;  but  in 
a  state  of  full  adoption  and  freedom.  This  state  of  the  visible 
Church,  however,  as  contrasted  with  that  which  the  Church 
now  enjoys,  is  illustrative  of  the  contrast  between  the  spiritual 
state  of  the  elect  soul,  before  conversion,  while  convicted  and 
self-righteous,  and  after  conversion  while  rejoicing  in  hope. 
This  remark  may  serve  to  explain  the  language  of  Galatians 
3d  and  4th. 

I  would  discard,  then,  those  representations  of  the  intoler- 
able harshness,  bondage,  literalness,  absence 
ference.'^°'"^'  °^  ^'^'  of  spiritual  blessing,  in  the  old  dispensation, 
and  give  the  following  modified  statement. 

(a.)  The  old  dispensation  preceded  the  actual  transacting 
of  Christ's  vicarious  work.       The  new  dispensation  succeeds  it. 

(b.)  Hence,  the  ritual  teachings,  (not  all  the  teachings)  of 
the  old  dispensation  were  typical ;  those  of  the  New  Testament 
are  commemorative  symbols.  A  type  is  a  symbolic  prediction ; 
and  for  the  same  reason  that  prophecy  is  less  intelligible  before 
the  event,  than  history  of  it  afterwards,  there  was  less  clear- 
ness and  fullness  of  disclosure.  (See  i  Pet.  i:  12.)  Again, 
because  under  the  Old  Testament  the  Divine  sacrifice  by  which 
guilt  was  to  be  removed,  was  still  to  be  made  ;  the  sacrificial 
types,  (those  very  types  which  foreshadowed  the  pardoning 
grace  as  well  as  the  condemning  justice,)  presented  a  more 
prominent  and  repeated  exhibition  of  guilt  than  now,  under 
the  gospel ;  when  the  sacrifice  is  completed;  (Heb.  x:  3,) 
because  it  was  harder  to  look  to  the  true  propitiation  in  the 
future,  than  it  is  now  in  the  past ;  the  voice  of  the  law,  the 
paedagogue  who  directed  men's  eyes  to  Christ,  was  graciously 
rendered  louder  and  more  frequent  than  it  is  now. 

(c)  Perspicuity  in  commemorating  being  easier  than  in 
predicting,  the  ritual  teachings  of  the  previous  dispensation 
were  more  numerous,  varied  and  laborious. 

(d)  God,  in  His  inscrutable  wisdom,  saw  fit  to  limit  the  old 
dispensation  to  one  nation,  so  far  at  least,  as  to  require  that  any 


462  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sinner  embracing  it  should  become  an  Israelite ;  and  to  make 
the  necessary  ritual  territorial  and  local.  Under  the  New  Testa- 
ment all  nations  are  received  alike. 

(e)  The    previous    dispensation  was    temporary',  the    New 
Testament  will  last  till  the  consummation  of  all  things. 

With  reference  to  the  state  of  the  Old  Testament  saints  in 
8.   Old   Testament    ^^e  Other  world,  we  discard  the  whole  fable 
Saints    Redeemed   at    of  the  Papists  concerning  a  limbus  patrum, 
'^^^^^-  .         and  the  postponement  of  the  application  of 

redemption  to  them  till  Christ's  death.  Christ's  suretyship  is 
such  that  His  undertaking  the  believer's  work,  releases  the 
believer  as  soon  as  the  condition  is  fulfilled.  He  is  not  merely 
Fide  jussor,  but  ex  proinissor  (Turrettin),  Christ  being  an  immu- 
table, almighty  and  faithful  surety,  when  He  undertook  to  make 
satisfaction  to  the  law,  it  was,  in  the  eye  of  that  God  to  whom  a 
thousand  years  are  but  as  one  day,  as  good  as  done.  (Here,  by 
the  way,  is  some  evidence  that  the  chief  necessity  of  atonement 
was  not  to  make  a  governmental  display,  but  to  satisfy  God's 
own  attributes).  See  Rom.  iii  :  25  ;  Heb.  ix  :  15  ;  Ps.  xxxii  : 
I,  2  ;  li  :  2  ;  10-13  !  ^iii  :  12  ;  Is.  xliv  :  22  ;  Luke  xvi  :  22, 
23  ;  with  Matt,  viii  :  ii  ;  Lukeix  :  31  ;  Ps.  Ixxiii  :  24 ;  i  Pet.  iii: 
19  ;  Heb.  xi  :  16  ;  xii  :  23. 

These  texts  seems  to  me  to  prove,  beyond  all  doubt,  that 
Christ's  sacrifice  was  for  the  guilt  of  Old  Testament  believers, 
as  well  as  those  under  the  New  Testament ;  that  the  antici- 
pative  satisfaction  was  imputed  to  the  ancient  saints  when  they 
believed,  and  that  at  their  death,  they  went  to  the  place  of 
glory  in  God's  presence.  What  else  can  we  make  of  the  trans- 
lations of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  and  the  appearance  of  Moses  in 
glor^',  before  Christ's  death? 

The  strength    of   the    Papists'   scriptural    argument   is    in 
the  last  two  of  the  texts  cited  by  me.     I  may 

No  Ljmbus  Patrum.       ji         i  -d  •  ,  ^         ■u-ii.i        -n-i. 

add,  also.  Rev.  xiv  :  13,  which  the  rapists 
would  have  us  understand,  as  though  the  terinhms  a  quo  of  the 
blessedness  of  the  believing  dead  were  from  the  date  of  that 
oracle  ;  implying  that  hitherto  those  dying  in  the  Lord  had  not 
been  immediately  blessed.  It  is  a  flagrant  objection  to  this 
exposition,  that  the  Apocalypse,  was  a  whole  generation  after 
Christ's  resurrection,  when,  according  to  Papists,  the  dying 
saints  began  to  go  to  heaven.  The  terminus  is,  evidently,  the 
date  of  each  saint's  death.  The  testimony  from  Heb.  ix  :  8, 
you  have  seen  answered,  by  your  text-book,  Turrettin.  The 
Apostle's  scope  here  shows  that  his  words  are  not  to  be  wrested 
to  prove  that  there  was  no  application  of  redemption  until  after 
Christ  died.  The  author  is  attempting  to  show  that  the  Leviti- 
cal  temple  and  ritual  were  designed  to  be  superseded.  This  he 
argues,  with  admirable  address,  from  the  nature  of  the  services 
■  themselves :  The  priests  offered  continually,  and  the  High 
Priest  every  year,  by   the    direction    of  the    Holy    Ghost ;  by 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  463 

which  God  showed  that  that  ritual  was  not  to  be  permanent ; 
for  if  it  had  been  adequate,  it  would  have  done  its  work  and 
ceased.  Its  repetition  showed  that  the  work  of  redemption  was 
not  done ;  and  never  would  be,  until  another  dispensation  came, 
more  efficacious  than  it.  Such  is  the  scope.  Now,  the  words, 
"the  way  into  the  sanctuary  was  not  yet  manifested,"  in  such  a 
connection,  are  far  short  of  an  assertion,  that  no  believing  soul 
could,  at  death,  be  admitted  to  heaven.  Is  not  the  meaning 
rather,  that  until  Christ  finished  His  sacrifice,  the  human  priest 
still  stood  between  men  and  the  mercy-seat? 

But  the  locus  palmarius  of  the  Papists  for  a  Limbiis  Pa- 
triim,  is  I   Pet.  iii  :   19,  &c.     On   this  obscure 

Pet  T^'^iQ  &c"°' ''^  ^  ^^^^  y*^*-^  "^"^y  consult,  besides  commentaries, 
(among  whom  see  Calvin  in  loco,)  Knapp, 
Chr.  TheoL,  §  96  ;  Turrettin,  Loc.  xii,  Que.  ii,  §  15  ;  Loc.  xiii. 
Que.  15,  §  12.  Here,  again,  our  safest  guide  is  the  Apostle's 
scope,  which  is  this :  Christ  is  our  Exemplar  in  submitting 
patiently  to  undeserved  suffering.  For  Him  his  own  people 
slew :  the  very  Saviour  who,  so  far  from  deserving  ill  at  their 
hands,  had  in  all  ages  been  offering  gospel  mercy  to  them  and 
their  fathers,  even  to  those  most  reprobate  of  all,  the  Antedi- 
luvians. But  the  same  Divine  Nature  in  which  Christ  had  been 
so  mercifully  carrying  a  slighted  gospel  to  that  ancient  gene- 
ration, (now,  for  their  unbelief,  shut  up  in  the  prison  of  hell,) 
gloriously  raised  Him  from  the  dead,  after  their  equally  repro- 
bate posterity  had  unjustly  slain  Him.  Here  is  our  encourage- 
ment while  we  suffer  innocently  after  the  example  of  our  Head. 
For  this  resurrection,  which  glorified  Him  over  all  His  ancient 
and  recent  enemies,  will  save  us.  Then  we,  redeemed  by  that 
grace  which  was  symbolized  to  the  ancient  believers  by  the 
type  of  the  ark,  and  to  modern,  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
\y\\\  emerge  triumphantly  from  an  opposing  and  persecuting 
world  ;  as  Christ's  little  Church,  (consisting  then  of  a  number 
contemptible  in  unbelievers'  eyes,)  in  Noah's  day,  came  out 
from  the  world  of  unbelievers. 

With  this  simple  and  consistent  view  of  the  Apostle's  drift, 
the  whole  dream  of  a  descent  into  Hades,  and  a  release  of  the 
souls  of  the  patriarchs  from  their  liuibits,  is  superfluous,  and 
therefore  unreasonable. 


LECTURE  XXXIX. 

MEDIATOR  OF  THE  COVENANT  OF  GRACE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  the  meaning  of  the  word  Mediator?  Why  needed  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  ? 

Lexicons.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  3.     Dick,  Lect.  51. 

2.  Is  Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  Promised  Mediator?    Against  Jews. 

Turretrin,  Qu.  i,  2.     Home's  Introduction,  Vol,  i,  (Am.  Ed.)     Appendix,  §  6. 

3.  What  is  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person  ?  State  the  doctiine  of  the  Gnos- 
tics, Eutychians,  Nestorians  and  Chalcedon  hereon.  What  the  results,  in  the  media- 
torial person  and  acts,  of  this  hypostatic  union  ? 

Hill's  Div.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  8.  Turrettin,  Qu.  6,  7,  8.  Church  Histories,  espe- 
cially Gieseler's,  Vol.  i,  §  42-45,  and  86-88.  Neander's,  Vol.  ii,  p.  434,  &c. 
Torrey's  Tr.  Dick,  Lect.  53.  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  8.  Ridgeley,  Qu.  37. 
Dr.  Wm.  Cunninghum's,  Hist.  Theology,  ch.  10. 

4.  Was  Christ's  human  nature  peccable? 

Plumer,  "  Person  and  Sinless  Character  of  Christ."  Hodge,  Theol.,  Vol.  ii, 
p.  457.     Schaff's  Person  of  Christ.     Dorner's  Hist.  Prot.  Theology. 

5.  Does  Christ  perfonn  His  mediatorial  ofiices  in  both  Natures?  Why  was  each 
necessary  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  3,  and  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  2.  Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  ii,  ch.  12.  Dick, 
Lect.  51,  53.     Ridgeley,  Qu.  38-40.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  9. 

6.  What  the  Socinian  view  of  the  necessity  of  Christ's  Prophetic  Work  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  i,  Qu.  4.     Stapfer,  ch.  12,  §  18-25,  ^^'^  122,  &c. 

nPHE  word  mediator  is  in  the  New  Testament  Msmzr^^  middle 
man.     The  phrase  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament, 

r.  Mediatorwhat?  ^^^^fg^  '^  the  Sept.  translation  of  Job  ix  : 
33.  (Engl.  V  :  days-man,  )  and  then  with  the 
sense  of  umpire,  not  of  mediator.  Its  idea  in  the  New  Testament 
is  evidently  of  one  who  intervenes  to  act  between  parties,  who 
cannot,  for  some  reason,  act  with  each  other  directly.  Thus, 
Moses  was  (Gal.  iii  :  19)  the  mediator  of  the  Theocratic  cove- 
nant. But  in  this,  he  was  no  more  than  interminciiis.  Christ's 
mediation  included  far  more,  as  will  appear  when  we  prove  His 
three  offices  of  prophet,  priest  and  king;  which  are  here 
assumed. 

No    mediator    was    necessary  in  the    Covenant  of  Works 

,,n     ,.T    ,  , .    ^        between  God  and  angels,  or  God  and  Adam  ; 

Wliy  Needed  m  Cove-  ,  •  c  w  ^  ^\  ^\ 

nant  of  Grace?  because, in  untallen  creatures,  there  was  noth- 

ing to  bar  direct  intercourse  between  them 
and  God.  Hence  the  Scripture  presents  no  evidence  of  Christ's 
performing  any  mediatorial  function  for  them.  On  the  con- 
trary the  Bible  implies  always,  that  Christ's  offices  were  under- 
taken, because  men  were  sinners.  Matt,  i  :  21  ;  Is.  liii  ;  Jno. 
iii  :  16.  But,  man  being  fallen,  the  necessity  of  Christ's  medi- 
ation appears  from  all  the  moral  attributes  of  God's  nature; 
His  truth,  (pledged  to  punish  sin,)  His  justice,  (righteously  and 
necessarily  bound  to  requite  it,)  His  goodness,  (concerned  in 
the  wholesome  order  of  His  kingdom,)  and  His  holiness,  (in- 
464 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  465 

trinsically  repellent  of  sinners).  So  also,  man's  enmity,  evil 
conscience  and  guilty  fear,  awakened  by  sin,  call,  though  not  so 
necessarily,  for  a  mediator. 

It  has  been  objected  that  this  argument  represents  God's 
will  as  under  a  constraint;  for  else  what  hindered  His  saving 
man  by  His  mere  will?  And  that  it  dishonours  His  wisdom  by 
making  Him  go  a  roundabout  way  to  His  end,  subjecting  His 
Son  to  many  humiliations  and  pangs.  The  answer  is  :  the 
necessity  was  a  moral  one,  proceeding  out  of  God's  own  volun- 
tary perfections.  Note.  To  sustain  our  argument  we  must  assert 
that  God's  mere  will  is  not  the  sole  origin  of  moral  distinctions. 
See  Lect.  x  :  on  that  point. 

Against  the  Jews  we  assert  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the 
Messiah  and  Mediator  of  this  Covenant.  Of 
the01dTettament!°'^°  ^"  argument  SO  comprehensive,  and  contain- 
ing so  many  details,  only  the  general  struc- 
ture can  be  indicated.  In  this  argument  the  standard  of 
authoritative  reference  assumed  is  the  Old  Testament,  which  the 
orthodox  Jew  admits  to  be  inspired.  (As  for  the  Rationalistic, 
they  must  first  be  dealt  with  as  other  skeptics.)  Second.  In 
this  argument  no  other  authority  is  claimed  for  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  advance,  than  that  it  is  an  authentic  narrative.  As  such, 
it  is  substantiated  by  the  profane  and  Jewish  history.  We  then 
make  two  heads  : 

The  promised  Mediator  of  the  Old  Testament  must  have 
,  ,  ^  ,     ^.       already  come.     For   the   time  has    passed. 

is  gss^5"""  ""'  ^""''  (See  Gen.  xlix  :  lO  ;  Dan.  ix  :  24-27).  He 
was  to  come  while  the  second  temple  was 
standing.  (Hag.  ii  :  6-9  ;  Mai.  iii  :  1-3).  He  was  to  come 
while  the  Jewish  polity  subsisted  ;  (Gen.  xlix  :  10,)  and  while 
Jerusalem  was  still  the  capital  of  that  theocracy.  (Hag.  ii  :  6- 
9  ;  Is.  ii  :  3  ;  Ixii  :  i,  &c.)  This  polity  and  city  have  now  been 
overwhelmed  for  nearly  1,800  years  :  so  that  the  very  ability  to 
give  genealogical  evidence  of  the  birth  of  Christ  from  David's 
stock  is  now  utterly  gone !  The  Messiah's  coming  was  to  be 
signalized  by  the  cessation  of  types.  (Dan.  ix  :  27).  Last  : 
the  Messiah's  coming  was  to  be  marked  by  the  accession  of 
multitudes  of  Gentiles  to  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament, 
(See  Is.  ii  :  3  ;  xlii  :  1-6 ;  xlix  :  6  ;  Ix  :  3,  &c.) 

Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Person;  because  all  the  qualities 
and  incidents  foretold  in  the  Old  Testament, 
thi  appoS  Traits.'''    Wonderfully    tally  with   Him    and    His    life. 
(See   Acts   iii  :  18.)      The    strength    of  the 
argument   is  in  the  completeness   of  this  correspondence.     In 
fairly  estimating  this  proof,  reference  must  be  made  to  the  doc- 
trine of  probabilities.     The  occurrence  of  one  predicted  trait  in 
a  person  would  prove  nothing.     The  concurrence  of  two  would 
not  be  a  demonstration;    because  that  concurrence  might  be 
fortuitous.     But,  when  three   independent  and  predicted  trait.-- 
30* 


466  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

concurred,  the  proof  would  greatly  strengthen ;  because  the 
likelihood  that  chance  could  account  for  all  three,  is  diminished, 
in  a  multiplying  ratio.  So,  as  the  number  of  coincident,  pre- 
dicted traits  increases,  the  evidence  mounts  U23,  by  a  multiplying 
ratio,  towards  absolute  certainty.  Jesus,  then,  answers  the  pro- 
phetic description  in  the  time  of  His  birth.  (See  above.)  In 
the  place  ;  Micah.  v  :  2.  In  His  nativity  of  a  virgin  ;  Is.  vii  : 
14.  In  His  forerunner;  Mai.  iii  :  i,  &c.  In  His  lineage;  Gen. 
iii  :  15,  xviii  :  18,  xlix  :  lO;  Is.  xi  :  i  ;  Ps.  cxxxii  :  ii  ;  Is.  ix  :  7, 
&c.  In  His  preaching ;  Is.  Ixi  :  1-3.  In  His  miracles  ;  Is. 
XXXV  :  5-6.  In  His  tenderness  and  meekness ;  Is,  xlii  :  3.  In 
the  circumstances  of  His  end,  viz..  His  entry  into  Jerusalem  ; 
Zech.  ix  :  9.  Betrayal;  Zech.  xi  :  12,  13.  Rejection  and  con- 
tempt ;  Is.  liii  :  3.  Death ;  liii  :  8.  Mockings  therein  ;  Ps. 
xxii  :  8.  Vinegar;  Ps.  Ixix  :  21.  Piercing;  Zech.  xii  :  10. 
Yet  no  bones  broken  ;  Ps.  xxxiv  :  20.  Death  with  malefactors  ; 
Is.  liii  :  9.  Honourable  burial ;  Is.  liii  :  9.  Resurrection  ;  Ps. 
xvi  :  9,  10;  Ixviii  18.  Spiritual  effusions  ,  Joel,  ii  :  28.  Again: 
the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament  was  to  have  a  wondrous 
union  of  natures,  offices  and  destinies,  Avhich  was  mysterious  to 
the  Old  Testament  saints,  and  absurd  to  modern  Jews ;  yet  was 
wonderfully  realized  in  Jesus.  He  was  to  be  God,  (Ps.  ii  :  7 ; 
Is.  ix  :  6) ;  yet  man,  (Is.  ix  :  6.)  The  history  of  Jesus,  taken 
with  His  words,  shows  Him  both  human  and  divine.  The  Mes- 
siah was  to  be  both  priest  and  victim.  (Ps.  ex ;  Is.  liii.)  He 
vvas  to  be  an  outcast,  (Is.  liii,)  and  a  king,  (Ps.  ii.)  So  was 
Jesus.  He  was  to  conquer  all  people,  (Ps.  xlv  and  Ixxii  :  iio); 
yet,  without  violence.  (Is.  xlii  :  3 ;  Ps.  xlv  :  4.)  He  was  to 
combine  the  greatest  contrasts  of  humiliation  and  glory.  These 
contrasts  are  so  hard  to  satisfy  in  one  Person  (to  all  unbelieving 
Israel  it  seems  impossible,)  that  when  we  find  them  meeting  in 
Jesus,  it  causes  a  very  strong  evidence  to  arise,  that  He  is  the 
Mediator. 

The    doctrine    of    the    constitution   of  Christ's    person,    is 

TT       ^  ^:  TT  ■        purely    one    of  Revelation,    and     involves    a 
3.  HypostaUc  Union.     ^       /        ^     rj..         ...         ^\  .  i 

mystery  (i  Tmi.  ni  :  16,)  as  great,  perhaps,  as 
that  of  the  Trinity  itself.  But  though  inexplicable,  it  is  not 
incredible.  The  nature  of  the  scriptural  argument  by  which 
this  twofold  nature  in  one  person  is  established,  is  analogous  to 
that  establishing  a  Trinity  in  unity.  The  text  nowhere  defines 
the  doctrine  in  one  passage,  as  fully  as  we  assert  it.  But  our 
doctrine  is  a  necessary  deduction  from  three  sets  of  Scriptural 
assertions.  First.  Jesus  Christ  was  properly  and  literally  a 
man.  (See,  e.  g.,  Jno.  i  :  14;  Gal.  iv  :  4;  Jno,  i  :  51  ;  Is.  ix  :  6 ; 
Heb.  ii:i7;  Matt,  iv  :  2 ;  Luke  ii :  40,  52;  Matt,  viii  :  24  ; 
Mark  xiii  :  32  ;  Jno.  xi  :  35  ;  Matt,  xxvi  :  ^y,  &c.)  Second. 
Christ  is  also  literally  and  properly  divine.  (See,  e.  g.,  Jno.  i  :  I  ; 
Rom.  ix  :  v  i-  John  v  :  20 ;  Is.  ix  :  6  ;  Phil,  ii  :  6 ;  Col.  ii  :  9  ; 
Heb.  i  :  3;   I  Tim.   iii  :  16,  &c.)     Yet  this  Man-God  is  one  and 


OF  LFXTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  46/ 

the  same  ;  in  proof  of  which  we  need  only  allude  to  the  fact, 
that  in  every  text  speaking  of  Him,  oneness  of  person,  and 
personal  attributes,  are  either  asserted  or  implied  of  Him.  In 
many  passages  the  same  proposition  asserts  both  natures  in 
one  person,  (e.  g.,  Jno.  iii  :  13  ;    i  Tim.  iii  :  16.) 

To  Socinians,  and  other  errorists,  these  passages  seem  con- 
tradictory, because  being  unwilling  to  admit  the  "incarnate 
mystery,"  they  insist  on  explaining  away  one  class  of  them. 
The  true  explanation  is,  that  both  are  true,  because  of  the 
hypostatic  union.  By  these  means  such  seeming  paradoxes  are 
to  be  explained,  as  those  in  Mark  xiii :  32,  compared  with  John 
V  :  20 ;  Matt,  xi  :  27,  &c.  The  first  of  these  verses  asserts  that 
even  the  Son  does  not  know  the  day  and  hour  when  the  earth 
and  heavens  shall  pass  away.  The  others  ascribe  omniscience 
to  Him.  The  explanation  (and  the  only  one)  is  that  Christ  in 
His  human  nature  has  a  limited  knowledge,  and  in  His  divine 
nature,  an  infinite  knowledge. 

The  opinions  of  Gnostics  are  sufficiently  narrated   by  Hill, 

{Joe  cit.)  As  they  have  no  currency  in 
Christ?Pers^n!°'^         modern    times,    I    will    content   myself   with 

briefly  reminding  you  of  the  distinction 
between  the  other  Gnostics  and  those  called  Docetai.  Both  par- 
ties concurred  in  regarding  matter  as  the  source  of  all  moral 
evil.  Hence,  they  could  not  consistently  admit  the  resurrec- 
tion and  glorification,  either  of  the  saints  or  of  Jesus'  body. 
The  Docetai,  therefore,  taught  that  Christ  never  had  a  literal 
human  body ;  but  only  a  phantasm  of  one,  on  which  the  malice 
of  His  persecutors  was  spent  in  vain.  The  others  taught  that 
the  Aion,  who  they  supposed  constituted  Christ's  superior 
nature,  only  inhabited  temporarily  in  the  man  Jesus,  a  holy  Jew 
constituted  precisely  as  other  human  beings  are  ;  and  that,  at 
the  crucifixion,  this  Aion  flew  away  to  heaven,  leaving  the  man 
Jesus  to  suffer  alone. 

The  historical  events  attending  the  Nestorian  controversy, 

and  the  personal  merits  of  Nestorius,  I  shall 
view.^      ^^   on  an    ^ot  discuss.    The  system  afterwards  known  as 

Nestorianism  was  apprehended  by  the  Catholic 
Christians,  as  by  no  means  a  trivial  one,  or  a  mere  logomachy  about 
the  deoToxo:;.  The  true  teacher  of  the  doctrinal  system  was  rather 
Theodore  of  Mopuestia,  (a  teacher  of  Nestorius)  than  the  lat- 
ter prelate.  In  his  hands,  it  appears  to  be  a  development  of 
Pelagianism,  which  it  succeeded  in  date,  and  an  application  to 
the  constitution  of  Christ's  person  of  the  erroneous  doctrines 
of  man's  native  innocence.  Theodore  set  out  from  opposition . 
to  Apollinaris,  who  taught  that  the  divine  Reason  in  Christ  sub- 
stituted a  rational  human  nature,  leaving  Christ  only  a  material 
and  animal  nature  on  the  human  side.  According  to  Theodore, 
Christ  is  a  sort  of  impersonated  symbol  of  mankind,  first  as 
striving  successfully  against  trial,  and  second,  as  rewarded  with 


468  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

glory  for  this  struggle.  He  supposed  Christ  the  Man  to  exer- 
cise a  self-determining  power  of  will,  which,  he  taught,  is  nec- 
essary to  moral  merit  in  any  man.  Christ,  the  man,  then,  began 
His  human  career,  with  the  Word  associated  and  strengthening 
His  human  nature.  As  Christ  the  man  resisted  trial  and  ex- 
hibited His  devotion  to  duty  in  the  exercise  of  His  self- 
determination.  He  was  rewarded  by  more  full  and  intimate 
communications  of  divine  indwelHng,  until  His  final  act  of 
devotion  was  rewarded  with  an  ascension,  and  full  communica- 
tion of  the  Godhead.  The  process  in  each  gracious  soul' offers 
an  humble  parallel.  The  indwelling  of  God  the  Word  in  Jesus, 
is  not  generically  unlike  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  a  saint :  but 
only  closer  and  stronger  in  degree.  There  are,  indeed,  three 
grades  of  this  one  kind  of  union,  first,  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
in  sanctification  ;  second,  that  of  the  same  person,  in  inspira- 
tion ;  third,  that  of  the  Word  in  Christ.  And  the  Nestorians 
preferred  rather  to  speak  of  the  last,  as  a  aoidczca  than  a 
kvioac::^  the  preferred  term  of  Cyril. 

This  view  seemed  to  involve  two  Pelagian  errors ;  first,  that 
^         .    ,  ^  grace  is  bestowed    as  the    reward  of  man's 

Doct   trinal   Conse--ti.  •  r  1  /•      ^  ■ 

quences.  right  exercise  01  moral  powers,  (m  his  own 

self-determined  will,)  instead  of  being  the 
gratuitous  cause  thereof;  and  second,  that  inasmuch  as  the 
human  purity  of  the  man  Jesus  went  before,  and  procured  the 
divine  indwelling,  it  is  naturally  possible  for  any  other  man  to 
be  perfect,  in  advance  of  grace.  Again,  from  the  separation  of 
the  nexus  between  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  there  seemed  to 
the  Catholics  to  be  a  necessary  obscuring  of  the  communica- 
tion of  attributes  ;  so  that  Christ's  sacrifice  would  no  longer  be 
divine  and  meritorious  enough  to  cover  infinite  guilt.  And 
thus  would  be  lost  the  fundamental  ground  of  His  substitution 
for  us.  The  whole  scheme  goes  rather  to  make  Christ  incarnate 
rather  a  symbolical  exemplar  of  the  work  of  God  in  a  believer, 
than  the  proper  redeeming  purchase  and  Agent  thereof  Its 
tendencies,  then,  are  Socinian. 

The  Alexandrine  theologians  generally  leaned  the  other 
way.  Cyril  was  fond  of  quoting  from  the 
u  yc  lan  lew.  great  Athanasius  ;  that  while  "  he  allowed 
Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  God,  according  to  the  spirit, 
but  son  of  man,  according  to  the  flesh  ;  but  not  two  natures 
and  one  son ;  the  one  to  be  worshipped  and  the  other  not ;  but 
one  nature  of  God  the  Word  incarnated,  and  to  be  worshipped 
by  single  worship  along  with  His  flesh."  They  loved  to  assert 
the  kvioac^  (unification)  of  the  natures,  rather  than  the  ao'^difzia 
(or  conjunction,)  of  Theodore.  They  preferred  to  conceive  of 
Christ  as  so  clothing  Himself  with  human  nature,  as  to  assim- 
ilate it,  by  a  species  of  subsumption,  with  His  divinity. 
Hence  the  error  of  Eutyches  was  prepared ;  that  while  the 
mediatorial  person  was  constituted  from  two  natures,  it  existed 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  469 

only  in  one,  the  divine.  This  error  is  as  fatal  to  a  proper  con- 
ception of  Christ's  mediatorial  work,  as  the  Nestorian.  B)' 
really  destroying  the  humanity  in  Christ,  from  the  moment  of 
His  birth,  it  gives  us  a  Redeemer  who  has  no  true  community 
of  nature  with  us ;  and  so,  does  not  render  a  human  obedience, 
nor  pay  the  human  penalty  in  our  room  and  stead.  The  creed 
of  Chalcedon,  intermediate  between  these  two  extremes,  is 
undoubtedly  the  scriptural  one,  as  it  has  been  adopted  by  all 
orthodox  churches,  ancient  and  modern,  and  is  the  basis  of  the 
propositions  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  on  this  point.  You 
have  these  symbols  within  }-our  reach  ;  and  I  shall  not  here 
repeat  them. 

For  Orthodox  creed  of  Chalcedon,  see  Mosheim,  vol.  i,  p. 
^  ,    ,     ,,.  366.     For  our  own,   see  Confession  of  Faith, 

Orthodox  Views.  1      o    c  _        t-i  •      j      ^  •  1  •  ^^ 

cli.  b,  §  2.  Inis  doctrme,  however  inexplic- 
able, is  not  incredible ;  because  it  is  no  more  mysterious  than 
the  union  of  two  substances,  spirit  and  body,  into  one  human 
person,  in  ourselves.  Yet,  who  is  not  conscious  of  his  own  per- 
sonality ?  That  the  infinite  Creator  should  assume  a  particular 
relation  to  one  special  part  of  His  creation,  the  man  Jesus,  is 
not  impossible,  seeing  He  bears  intimate  relations  (e.  g.,  as 
providential  upholder,)  to  all  the  rest.  That  an  infinite  spirit 
should  enter  into  personal  union  with  a  man,  is  surely  less  mys- 
terious than  that  a  finite  spirit  should  constitute  a  personal  union 
with  a  body ;  because  the  infinite  and  almighty  possesses,  so  to 
speak,  more  flexibility  to  enter  into  such  union  ;  and  because 
the  intimate  union  of  spirit  to  spirit,  is  less  mysterious  than  that 
of  spirit  with  body.     (A  perfect  analogy  is  not  asserted.) 

This  Hypostatic  union  is  the  cornerstone    of  our   redemp- 
.       ^,  .       tion.     The  whole  adaptation  of  the  Media- 

Hypostatic       Union     .       •    1  .       •.  11  , 

ground  of  the  Efficacy  torial  person  to  its  work  depends  on  it,  as 
of  Christ's  work,  will  be  shown  in  the  discussion  of  heads  5th, 
^J'ashe'd^''  objection  ^^^^  -pj^g  general  result  of  the  Hypostatic 
union  is  stated  well  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  Ch.  8,  §  7,  last  part.  This  is  that  xor^wuia  couoijAtco)^ 
which  we  hold,  in  common  with  the  early  Fathers,  repudiating 
the  Lutheran  idea  of  the  attributes  of  Divinity  being  literally 
conferred  on  the  humanity;  which  is  absurd  and  impossible. 
Apt  instances  oi  this '/.ocvcovi a  may  be  seen  in  John  iii  :  13; 
Acts  xiii :  1 5,  xx :  28,  xvii :  3 1  ;  Mark  ii :  10 ;  Gal.  iv  :  4 ;  and  Rom. 
i:  17,  or  iii:  21;  i  Cor.  u:  8.  Hence,  it  is,  that  Mediatorial 
acts  performed  in  virtue  of  either  nature,  have  all  the  dignity  or 
worth  belonging  to  the  Mediatorial  person  as  made  up  of  both 
natures.  Socinians  do,  indeed,  object :  that  inasmuch  as  only 
the  creature  could,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  subjected  to  the 
law,  and  to  penalty,  the  active  and  passive  obedience  of  Christ 
have,  after  all,  only  a  creature  worth ;  and  it  is  a  mere  legal 
fiction,  to  consider  them  as  possessed  of  the  infinite  worth  of  a 
divine  nature,  since  the  divine  nature  did  not  especially  render 


470  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

them.  The  answer  is :  The  person  possessed  of  a  divine  nature, 
rendered  them.  If  the  Socinian  would  honestly  admit  the  per- 
sonal union  as  a  thing  which  (though  inscrutable)  is  real  and 
literal,  his  objection  would  be  relinquished.  For  then,  many- 
analogies  of  human  persons  (not  perfect  indeed,  applicable 
fairly)  would  show  that  this  xocpcoi/ia  is  not  unnatural  even. 
We  shall  see  that  the  common  sense  and  conscience  of  men 
always  estimate  the  acts  and  sufferings  of  a  united  person 
(constituted  of  two  natures)  according  to  the  dignity  of  the 
higher  nature,  to  whichever  of  them  those  acts  or  sufferings 
may  specially  belong ;  e.  g.  There  are  many  bodily  affections, 
as  appetite,  pain,  which  we  characterize  as  distinctively  cor- 
poreal; and  yet,  had  not  our  bodies  souls  in  them,  these  affec- 
tions could  have  no  place.  Why  then  is  it  incredible,  that  the 
divine  substance  in  the  Medatorial  person  should  be  the  ground 
of  a  peculiar  value  in  the  human  sufferings  of  that  person ; 
though  in  strictness  of  speech,  the  divine  could  not  be  the  seat 
of  the  suffering  ?  Again,  corporeal  sufferings  of  martyrs  have 
a  moral  value,  which  can  only  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that 
those  suffering  men  were  not  brutes,  but  spiritual  and  moral 
beings ;  while  yet  the  soul  may  have  been  unconscious  of  the 
pangs,  through  spiritual  joy,  or  other  cause.  I  argue,  also, 
from  the  fact,  that  moral  character  is  given  to  merely  physical 
acts  of  men,  because  of  the  character  of  the  volition  prompting 
those  acts.  Now,  I  pray,  did  not  the  will  of  the  Aoyoc  prompt 
all  the  acts  of  active  and  passive  obedience  performed  by  the 
human  nature?  If  when  my  bones  and  muscles  in  my  arm  go 
through  identically  the  same  functions,  with  the  same  stick,  to 
beat  a  dangerous  dog,  and  to  beat  my  friend,  one  physical  act 
has  the  spiritual  character  of  lawfulness  and  the  other  physic- 
ally identical  act  has  the  spiritual  character  of  sinfulness,, 
because  of  the  concern  of  my  volition  in  them,  why  should  it  be 
thought  a  thing  incredible,  that  the  human  sufferings  of  Christ 
should  have  a  divine  character,  when  prompted  by  the  volition 
of  the  divine  nature  in  His  person?  And  is  not  the  bodily  pain 
of  a  man  more  important  than  that  of  a  dog?  It  is  enough, 
however,  to  show  that  the  infinite  dignity  of  Christ's  divine 
nature  is,  in  Scripture,  given  as  ground  of  the  infinite  value  of 
that  work.  See  Heb.  ix  :  13,  14,  vii  :  16,  24;  John  iii  :  16; 
I  Pet.  i:  18,  19;  Ps.  xl  :  6;  Heb.  x  :  5 — 14. 

4.  The  old  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches  asserted 
not  only  the  actual  sinlessness,  which  none  but  violent  infidels 
impugn,  but  the  impeccability  of  our  Redeemer.  In  recent 
days,  some  of  whom  better  things  should  have  been  expected, 
deny  the  latter.  They  concede  to  the  God-man  the  posse  non 
peccare:  but  deny  to  Him,  or  at  least  to  the  humanity,  the  non 
posse  peccare.  Their  plea  is  in  substance,  that  a  being  must 
be  peccable  in  order  to  experience  temptation,  to  be  merito- 
rious for  resisting  it,  and  to  be  an  exemplar  and  encouragement 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  47 1 

to  US,  who  are  tempted.  Thus  argue  Ullman,  Farrar,  the  author 
of  "  Ecce  Deus,"  Dr.  Schaff,  and  even  Dr.  Hodge ;  while  Dr. 
Dorner,  in  his  "  History  of  Protestant  Theol.,"  revives  the 
Nestorian  and  Pelagian  doctrine,  of  a  meritorious  growth  or 
progress  of  Christ's  humanity  from  peccability  to  impecca- 
bility, by  virtue  of  the  holy  use  of  His  initial  contingency  and 
selfdetermination  of  will. 

Now,  none  will  say  that  the  second  Person,  as  eternal 
Word,  was,  or  is  peccable.  It  would  seem  then,  that  the  trait 
can  only  be  asserted  of  the  humanity.  But,  1st,  It  is  the  unan- 
imous testimony  of  the  Apostles,  as  it  is  the  creed  of  the 
Church,  that  the  human  nature  never  had  its  separate  person- 
ality. It  never  existed,  and  never  will  exist  for  an  instant,  save 
in  personal  union  with  the  Word.  Hence,  (a.)  Since  only  a 
Person  can  sin,  the  question  is  irrelevant ;  and  (b.)  Since  the 
humanity  never  was,  in  fact,  alone,  the  question  whether,  if 
alone,  it  would  not  have  been  peccable,  like  Adam,  is  idle. 
Second  :  It  is  impossible  that  the  person  constituted  in  union 
with  the  eternal  and  immutable  Word,  can  sin  ;  for  this  union  is 
an  absolute  shield  to  the  lower  nature,  against  error.  In  the 
God-man  "  dwells  the  fullness  of  the  God-head  bodily,"  Col, 
ii  :  9  ;  So,  i  :  19.  Third,  this  lower  nature,  upon  its  union  with 
the  Word,  was  imbued  with  the  full  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Ps.  xlv  :  7  ;  Isaiah  xi  :  2,  3  ;  Ixi :  i,  3  ;  Luke  iv  :  21 ; 
and  iv  :  I  ;  Jno.  i  :  32  ;  iii  :  34.  Fourth,  Christ  seems  to  assert 
his  own  impeccability.  Jno.  xiv  :  30.  "  Satan  cometh  and 
hath  nothing  in  me,"  So  Paul,  2  Cor.  v  :  21,  Christ  "knew 
no  sin;"  and  in  Heb.  xiii  :  8.  "Jesus  Christ  is  the  same  yes- 
terday, to-day  and  forever."  Jno.  x  :  36.  "  The  Father  hath 
sanctified  and  sent  Him  in  the  world."  Fifth  :  If  this  endow- 
ment of  Christ's  person  rose  no  higher  than  a  posse  noii  peccare, 
it  seems  obvious  that  there  was  a  possibility  of  the  failure  of 
God's  whole  counsel  of  redemption.  For,  as  all  agree,  a  sin- 
ning sacrifice  and  intercessor  could  redeem  no  one.  There 
must  have  been  then,  at  least  a  decretive  necessity,  that  all  his 
actions  should  be  infallibly  holy. 

The  pretext  for  imputing  peccability  to  the  Redeemer  has 
been  explained  :  it  only  remains  to  prove  it  groundless.  He 
was  certainly  subjected  to  temptation,  and  was,  in  a  sense,  thus 
qualified  to  be  a  perfect  example  to  and  sympathizer  with  us, 
in  our  militant  state.  But  this  consists  with  his  impeccability. 
These  writers  seem  to  think  that  if,  in  the  hitherto  sinless  will 
of  Jesus,  there  had  been  no  contingency  and  self-determination 
when  He  came  to  be  tempted,  He  could  have  had  no  actual 
realization  of  spiritual  assaults,  and  no  victory.  Does  not  this 
amount  to  teaching  that  a  rudiment  at  least  of  "  concupiscence" 
in  Him  was  necessary  to  this  victory  and  merit.  Then  it  would 
follow  that  we  shall  hold,  with  Pelagius,  that  concupiscence  is 
not  ^m.  per  se\  for  that  cannot  be  ^m.  per  se,  which  is  essential  to 


4/2  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

right  action,  under  a  given  condition    assigned    the  responsible 
agent  by  God's  own  providence. 

In  fact,  the  supposed  stress  of  our  opponents'  plea  is  dis- 
solved, when  we  make  the  obvious  distinction  between  the  act 
of  intellection  of  the  natural  desirableness  seen  in  an  object, 
and  a  spontaneous  appetency  for  it  apprehended  as  unlawful.  It 
is  the  latter  which  is  the  sin  of  concupiscence.  The  former  is 
likely  to  take  place  in  any  intellect,  simply  as  a  function  of  in- 
telligence, just  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  its  cognitive 
povv-er,  and  is  most  certain  to  take  place,  as  a  simple  function  of 
intelligence,  as  to  all  possible  objects,  in  the  infinite  mind  of 
the  holy  God  !  So  far  as  intellectual  conception  goes,  none 
conceive  so  accurately  as  God,  just  how  "the  pleasures  of  sin 
which  are  but  for  a  season,"  appear  to  a  fallible  creature's  mind. 
To  say  that  God  feels  the  sin  of  "  concupiscence  "  would  be 
blasphemy.  This  distinction  shows  us  how  an  impeccable  being 
ma}"  be  tempted.  While  the  human  will  of  Jesus  was  rendered 
absolutely  incapable  of  concupiscence  by  the  indwelling  of  the 
Godhead  and  its  own  native  endowment ;  He  could  doubtless 
represent  to  Himself  mentally  precisely  how  a  sinful  object 
affjcts  both  mind  and  heart  of  His  imperfect  people.  Does  not 
this  fit  Him  to  feel  for  and  to  succor  them  ?  And  is  His  victory 
over  temptation  the  less  meritorious,  because  it  is  complete  ? 
Let  me  explain.  We  will  suppose  that  the  idea  of  a  forbidden 
object  is  suggested  (possibly  by  an  evil  spirit,)  before  the  intelr 
lect  of  a  Christian.  One  of  two  things  may  happen.  By  the 
force  of  indwelling  sin  the  presence  of  that  idea  in  conception 
may  result  in  some  conscious  glow  of  appetency  towards  the 
object ;  but  the  sanctified  conscience  is  watchful  and  strong 
enough  to  quench  this  heat  before  it  flames  up  into  a  wrong 
volition.  This  perhaps  is  the  usual  case  with  Christians.  And 
there,  our  opponents  would  exclaim,  is  the  wholesome  self-dis- 
cipline !  There  is  the  creditable  and  ennobling  warfare  against 
sin !  Let  us  now  suppose  the  other  result ;  which,  in  the  hap- 
pier hours  of  eminent  saints,  doubtless  follows  sometimes  :  that 
when  the  tempting  idea  is  presented  in  suggestion,  the  con- 
science is  so  prompt,  and  holy  desires  so  pre-occupy  the  mind, 
that  the  thought  is  ejected  before  it  even  strikes  the  first  spark 
of  concupiscence  ;  that  the  entire  and  immediate  answer  of  the 
heart  to  it  is  negative.  Is  not  this  still  more  creditable  than  the 
former  case?  Surely  !  If  we  approved  the  man  in  the  former 
case  because  the  state  of  his  soul's  moral  atmosphere  was  such, 
that  the  evil  spark  went  out  before  it  set  fire  to  the  stream  of 
action ;  we  should  still  more  approve,  in  the  latter  case,  where 
the  atmosphere  of  the  soul  was  such  that  the  spark  of  evil  was 
not  lighted  at  all.  Will  any  one  say,  that  here,  there  was  no 
temptation.  This  is  as  though  one  should  say,  there  was  no 
battle,  because  the  victory  was  complete  and  the  victor  un- 
scathed. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  473 

Those  who  make  this  difficulty  about  Christ's  impeccabihty 
seem  to  discard  another  truth,  which  is  a  corner-stone  of  our 
system.  This  is  the  consistency  of  a  real  free  agency  with  an 
entire  certainty  of  the  will.  They  argue  that  unless  Jesus  were 
free  in  his  rejection,  of  temptation,  He  would  have  wrought  no 
moral  victory.  This  is  true.  But  they  wish  us  to  infer  there- 
from, that  because  His  will  was  free,  it  must  have  been  mutable. 
This  deduction  would  be  consistent  only  in  a  Pelagian.  Every 
Calvinist  knows  that  a  holy  will  may  be  perfectly  free,  and  yet 
determined  with  absolute  certainty,  to  the  right.  Such  is  God's 
will.  "  He  cannot  lie."  Yet  He  speaks  truth  freely.  The  sin- 
ner presents  the  counterpart  case,  when  "  his  eyes  are  full  of 
adultery,  and  he  cannot  cease  from  sin."  Yet  is  this  sinner  free 
in  continuing  his  course  of  sin  and  rejecting  the  monitions  of 
duty.  This  case  sufficiently  explains,  by  contrast,  the  impec- 
cability of  Jesus.  He  has  every  natural  faculty  which,  in 
Adam's  case,  was  abused  to  the  perpetration-  of  his  first  sin. 
But  they  were  infallibly  regulated  by,  what  Adam  had  not,  a 
certain,  yet  most  free,  determination  of  His  dispositions  to  holi- 
ness alone.  It  is  useless  to  argue,  whether  Jesus  could  have 
sinned  if  He  had  chosen.  It  was  infallibly  certain  that  He  would 
not  choose  to  sin.     This  was  the  impeccability  we  hold. 

The    question,    whether    Christ    performs  the  functions  of 
^      ^,  .         ,.    Mediator    in    both     natures    is    fundamental. 

K.  Does  Christ  medi-    y^  •    i.      i-      •-     .1  .l       ..i        1 

ate  in  both  Natures  ?  Komanists  hmit  them  to  the  human  nature, 
in  order  to  make  more  plausible  room  for 
human  mediators.  They  plead  such  passages  as  Phil,  ii  :  7,  8  ; 
I  Tim.  ii  :  5,  and  the  dialectical  argument,  that  the  divinity 
being  the  offended  party,  it  is  absurd  to  conceive  of  it  as  medi- 
ating between  the  offender  and  itself. 

Now,  it  must  be  distinguished,  that  ever  since  the  incar- 
nation, the  Log-OS  may  perform  functions  of  incommunicable 
divinity,  inalienable  to  Him  as  immutable ;  such  as  sitting  on 
the  throne  of  the  universe  and  possessing  incommunicable 
attributes  ;  in  which  the  humanity  can  no  more  have  part  than 
in  that  creative  work,  which  Christ  performed  before  His  incar- 
nation. So,  likewise,  the  humanity  performed  functions,  in 
which  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  the  Logos  had  any  other 
concern  than  a  general  providential  one  ;  such  as  eating,  sleep- 
ing, drinking.  But  these  were  not  a  part  of  the  Mediatorship. 
We  assert  that,  in  all  the  Mediatorial  acts  proper,  both  natures 
To  TTooaco-Qv  deav&rtco-ov  act  concurrently,  according  to  their 
peculiar  properties.  This  we  prove,  ist,  »by  the  fact,  that  in 
Christ's  priestly  work,  the  divine  nature  operated  and  still  ope- 
rates, as  well  as  the  human.  See  i  Cor.  ii  :  8  ;  Heb.  ix  :  14  ; 
John  X  :  18.  Even  in  this  work  of  suffering  and  dying,  see  how 
essential  the  concurrent  actions  -of  the  divine  nature  were! 
Else,  there  would  have  been  none  of  the  autocracy  as  to  His 
own  life,  necessary  for    His  vicarious  work  ;   nor  would    there 


474  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

have  been  strength  to  bear  an  infinite  penalty  in  one  day.  Only 
the  Omniscient  can  intercede  for  all.  Hence,  we  argue  a  forti- 
ori, that  if  His  divinity  concurred  in  His  priestly  work,  the  part 
usually  supposed  most  irrelevant  to  deity,  much  more  does  it 
concur  in  His  prophetic  and  kingly.  See  Matt,  xi  :  27,  xxviii  : 
18.  2d.  If  Christ  does  not  perform  His  Mediatorial  work  in 
His  divine  nature  as  well  as  His  human.  He  could  not  have 
been  in  any  sense  the  Mediator  of  Old  Testament  saints ; 
because  their  redemption  was  completed  before  He  was  incar- 
nate. Did  Romanists  attend  to  the  fact,  that  it  is  the  very 
design  and  result  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  that  the  persons  of 
the  Trinity  should  act "  economically,"  in  their  several  offices  of 
redemption,  they  would  not  have  raised  the  inconsistent  objec- 
tion about  the  Godhead's  propitiating  the  Godhead.  The  Son, 
having  become  man's  Surety,  now  acts  economically  and  offi- 
cially for  him,  in  his  stead  propitiating  the  Father,  who  officially 
represents  the  majesty  of  the  offended  Trinity.  Besides,  unless 
the  Romanists  will  assert  not  only  two  wills,  but  these  two  in 
opposition,  in  the  Mediatorial  person,  the  divine  will  of  God  the 
Son  must,  on  their  scheme,  have  concerned  itself  with  propiti- 
ating God  ;  the  same  difficulty  ! 

One  remark  applies  to  all  His  mediatorial  functions  also ; 
that  the  will  of  both  natures  concurred  in  them. 

The   demands  of  Christ's  mediatorial  work  required  that 
Christ  should  be  proper  and  very  man.    Man- 
Why  must  the  Medi-  i^ind  had  fallen,  and  was  conscience-struck, 

a,tor  be  IVltin  '  . 

hostile,  and  fearful  towards  God.  Hence  it 
was  desirable  that  the  Daysman  should  appear  in  his  nature  as 
his  brother  in  order  to  encourage  confidence,  to  allure  to  a 
familiar  approach,  and  quiet  guilty  fears.  To  such  a  being  as 
sinful  man,  personal  intercourse  with  God  would  have  been 
intolerably  dreadful ;  (Gen.  iii  :  8  ;  Ex.  xx  :  19,)  and  even  an 
angel  would  have  appeared  too  terrible  to  his  fears. 

Again.  The  Bible  assures  us  that  one  object  gained  by 
the  incarnation  of  Christ,  was  fuller  assurance  of  His  sympathy, 
by  His  experimental  acquaintance  with  all  the  woes  of  our 
fallen  condition.  (Heb.  ii  :  17,  18  ;  iv  :  15  to  v  :  2.)  Theexperi- 
ence  of  every  Christian  under  trial  of  affliction,  testifies  to  the 
strength  of  this  reasoning  by  the  consolation  which  Christ's  true 
humanity  gives  Him.  It  is  very  true  that  the  Son,  as  omnis- 
cient God,  can  and  does  figure  to  Himself  conceptions  of  all 
possible  human  trials,  just  as  accurate  as  experience  itself;  but 
His  having  experienced  them  in  human  nature  enables  our  weak 
faith  to  grasp  the  consolation  better. 

Another  purpose  of  God,  in  clothing  our  Redeemer  with 
human  nature,  was  to  leave  us  a  perfect  human  example.  The 
importance  and  efficacy  of  teaching  by  example,  need  not  be 
unfolded  here.     (See  i  Pet.  ii  :  21  ;  Heb.  xii  :  2,  &c.) 

In  the   fourth  place,  Christ's  incarnation  was  necessary,  in 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  475 

order  to  establish  a  proper  basis  for  that  legal  union  between 
Him  and  His  elect,  which  should  make  Him  bearer  of  their 
imputed  guilt,  and  them  partakers  of  His  imputed  righteous- 
ness and  of  His  exaltation.  (See  i  Cor.  xv:  21.)  It  was  nec- 
essary that  man's  sin  should  be  punished  in  the  nature  of  man, 
in  order  to  render  the  substitution  more  natural  and  proper. 
(Rom.  viii  :  3.)  Had  the  deity  been  united  with  some  angelic, 
or  other  creature,  the  imputation  of  man's  sin  to  that  Person, 
and  its  punishment  in  that  foreign  nature  would  have  appeared 
less  reasonable.  (See  Heb.  ii :  14-16.)  So,  likewise,  the  obedi- 
ence rendered  in  another  nature  than  man's,  would  not  have 
been  so  reasonable  a  ground  for  raising  man's  race  to  a  share  in 
the  Mediator's  blessedness. 

And  this  leads  us  to  add,  last,  that  a  created  nature  was 
absolutely  essential  to  the  Mediator's  two  works,  of  obeying  in 
man's  stead,  and  suffering  for  his  guilt.  For  the  obedience,  no 
other  nature  would  have  been  so  appropriate  as  man's.  And 
none  but  a  creature  could  come  under  law,  assume  a  subject 
position,  and  work  out  an  active  righteousness.  God  is  above 
law,  being  Himself  the  great  law-giver.  For  the  other  vicari- 
ous work,  suffering  a  penalty,  not  only  a  created,  but  a  corporeal 
nature  is  necessary.  Angels  cannot  feel  bodily  death,  and 
brutes  could  not  experience  spiritual ;  but  both  are  parts  of  the 
penalty  of  sin.  The  divine  nature  is  impassible,  and  unchange- 
able in  its  blessedness.     Hence,  Heb.  x  :  5  ;  ix  :  22,  &c. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  prove  that  the  media- 
torial offices  could  not  be  performed  without 
must  l^e  God.  ^  ^^  ^^  ^^^^  divine  nature.  (See  Is.  xlv :  22  ;  Jer. 
xvii :  5-7,  xxiii :  6.)  Because  this  is  one  of 
the  most  overwhelming  arguments  against  Arians  and  Socini- 
ans.  We  assert  that  a  purpose  to  save  elect  men  by  a  media- 
torial plan,  being  supposed  in  God,  the  very  necessities  of  the 
case  required  that  this  mediator  should  be  very  and  proper  God. 
But  as  this  was  substantially  argued  in  Lect.  xviii,  when  proving 
the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Son,  the  student  is 
referred  to  that  place. 

But  the  sixth  question  of  our  Syllabus  raises  a  point  in 
6  Is  Christ's  Prophet-  this  direction,  which  requires  fuller  explana- 
ic  work  essential,  or,  tion.  The  scope  of  the  Socinian  system  is  to 
as  Socinians  say,  only  find  a  common  religion,  including  the  fewest 
possible  essential  elements.  Hence,  they 
like  to  represent,  that  virtuous  Pagans  may  belong  to  this  com- 
mon religion,  holding  the  doctrines  of  Natural  Theology.  The 
consequence  is,  that  the  Socinians,  while  speaking  many  hand- 
some things  of  Jesus  Christ  as  a  messenger  from  God,  still  con- 
cur with  other  Deists  and  infidels,  in  depreciating  the  necessity 
of  Revelation.  They  say  that  the  Scriptures  are  valuable,  but 
not  essential.  We  are  thus  led  again  to  the  old  question  of  the 
necessity  of  revelation. 


47^  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Let  US  not  assert  this  on  the  usual  partial  grounds.  The 
case  is  too  often  put  by  our  friends  as  though 
argmiieni.  conected.  °  ^^^^  ^^^^  alone  necessitated  a  revelation ;  the 
effects  of  sin  in  blinding  the  mind  and  con- 
science are  too  exclusively  mentioned.  Thus,  there  is  an  im- 
plied admission  that  a  revelation  is,  in  man's  case,  an  exceptional 
expedient,  caused  by  the  failure  of  God's  general  plan.  Thus, 
the  objection  is  suggested,  which  Socinians  and  other  enemies 
of  inspiration  have  not  failed  to  put  in  form  ;  and  which  many 
of  us  are  inclined  perhaps  to  feel,  as  though  the  idea  of  a  reve- 
lation were  unnatural,  and  hence  not  probable.  The  cavil  is, 
that  the  analogy  of  all  creation  discloses  this  plan :  Our  wise 
and  good  God,  in  creating  each  order  of  sentient  beings,  sur- 
rounded them  with  all  the  appointed  conditions  for  their  well- 
being,  by  the  established  course  of  nature.  Having  made 
fishes  for  the  water,  He  made  water  for  the  fishes ;  the  grass  is 
for  oxen,  and  the  oxen  for  grass ;  the  birds  for  the  air,  and  the 
air  for  the  birds.  Every  order,  by  living  within  the  natural 
conditions  provided  for  it,  secures  its  appropriate  end.  But 
according  to  the  orthodox,  man,  the  noblest,  the  rational  crea- 
ture, cannot  fulfil  the  ends  of  his  being,  immortal  blessedness, 
by  his  natural  means.  A  supernatural  expedient  must  be  found, 
against  the  general  analogy ;  or  else  man's  existence  is  a  fright- 
ful failure.  This,  they  urge,  is  unnatural,  discreditable  to  God, 
and  improbable. 

Now  I  meet  it  by  asserting  that,  to  make  a  rational  crea- 

„      ,   .  ture  dependent  on   a  rev^elation   of  God  for 

Revelation  necessary     tt-  •   -^      i  ir  •  ,  , 

to  Holy  Creatures.  ^^s    Spiritual    welfare,  IS    not   unnatural,    or 

extraordinary :  but  is,  for  all  spiritual  crea- 
tures, the  universal  and  strictly  natural  condition.  It  does  not 
arise  out  of  man's  sin  only  ;  the  truth  holds  as  well  of  angels, 
and  all  other  rational  creatures,  if  there  are  others.  We  must 
remember  that  none  originally  had  God  in  their  debt,  to  assure 
their  holiness  and  bliss;  but  were  naturally  under  this  relation, 
bound  to  obey  Him  perpetually ;  free  from  evil  as  long  as  they 
did  so  ;  but  subject  to  His  wrath  whenever  they  sinned.  Now 
holy  creatures  were  not  infallible,  nor  omniscient.  Their  wills 
were  right  and  free,  but  not  indefectible.  Bound  to  an  unend- 
ing career  of  perfect  obedience,  they  would  have  been  to  all 
eternity  liable  to  mistake,  and  sin  and  death.  Now,  when  a 
finite  wisdom  and  rectitude  are  matched  against  an  infinite 
series  of  duties  to  be  done,  of  choices  to  be  made,  each  natur- 
ally implying  some  possibility  of  a  wrong  choice,  that  possi- 
bility finally  mounts  up  from  a  probability  to  a  moral  certainty, 
that  all  would  some  day  fail.  How,  then,  could  an  angel,  or 
holy  Adam,  inherit  immutable  blessedness  forever?  Only  by 
drawing  direct  guidance  from  the  infallible,  infinite  Mind. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  enjoyment  of  its  appropriate  revelation 
by  each  order,   is   the  necessar}^  condition  of  its  well-being ;  a 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  47/ 

condition  as  natural,  original,  and  universal  as  its  own  moral 
nature  and  obligations.  If  Gabriel  had  not  his  revelation  he 
would  not  be  an  'elect  angel'  Do  I  mean  a  written  document? 
Do  I  speak  of  parchment  and  ink  ?  No ;  but  of  that  which  is 
the  essence  of  a  Revelation,  a  direct  communication  from  the 
infinite  Mind,  to  instruct  the  finite. 

Thus  we  may,  if  we  choose,  admit  the  analogy  which  the 
Socinian   claims,  and  find  it  wholly  against 
om^bus''^'°''  ''°'  ^'''    ^^i"^-     Our  Bible  is  not  an  exceptional  provi- 
dence ;  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with  God's 
method  towards  all  reasonable    creatures.       If  our  race  had 
none,  this  would  be  the  fatal  anomaly  against  us. 


LECTURE  XL. 

THE  MEDIATOR.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

,7.    Is  there  any   other  mediator  between   God  and   man,   than  Jesus    Christ? 
(Against  Papists). 

For  Popish  view,  see  Council  of  Trent.  Session  xxv.  Cat.  Rom.  pt.  iii,  ch.  2, 
Qu.  4-7,  pt.  iv,  ch.  6.  Bellarmine's  Controversies.  Dens'  Theol.  Daniel's 
Thesaurus  Hymn,  Vol.  i,  p.  241,  Vol.  2,  p.  133.  Missale  Romantim  passim. 
Turrettin  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  4.  Ridgley  Qu.  36.  Essay  (15th)  on  Romanism, 
Presb.  Bd.   Dick  Lect.  59. 

8.  How  was  Christ  inducted  into  His  office  ? 

Dick,  Lect.  54.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  6,  and  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  12.  Ridgley, 
Qu.  41,  42. 

9.  How  many  offices  does  Christ  fulfil  as  Mediator ;  and  why  these  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  5.     Dick,  Lect.  54.    Calv.  Inst.  bk.  ii,  ch.  15.     Ridg- 
ley, Qu.  43.     Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  8. 

10.  Prove  that  Christ  is  Prophet.     Under  how  many  Periods  and  Modes  did  He 
fulfil  this  office  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  7.     Dick,  Lect.  54,  55.     Ridgley,  Qu.  43. 

'  I  ^HE  Apostle  Paul  teaches  us,  (i  Tim.  ii  :  5,)  that  as  there 
is  but  one  God,  there  is  only  "one  mediator  between  God 
7.  Christ  only  Medi-  ^^^  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus."  Rome  seeks 
ator.  Rome's  Argu-  to  evade  this  and  similar  testimonies,  by  speak- 
ment  for  Contrary.  jj^g  ^f  ^  .primary  and  a  secondary  mediation, 
reserving  the  first  exclusively  to  Christ.  The  activity  of  angels 
and  dead  saints  as  secondary  mediators,  Rome  argues,  first, 
from  the  benevolence  and  affection  of  these  pure  spirits.  This 
kindness  we  daily  experience  at  the  hands  of  the  saints  while 
alive;"  and  the  Saviour  (Luke  xv  :  7,)  seems  to  ascribe  similar 
feelings  to  the  angels.  The  Church  believes  that  the  dead 
saints  retain  a  local  interest  in  the  places  and  people  which  they 
loved  while  living ;  and  she  thinks  that  Dan.  x  :  13,  teaches  the 
angels,  as   ministers  of  God's  providence,   have   their  districts, 


4/8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

and  even  their  individuals,  (Matt,  xviii  :  lo,)  whom  they  serve 
and  watch.  Second.  Rome  urges  that  numerous  cases  exist 
in  which  the  mediatorial  intervention  of  one  saint  for  another 
occurs,  in  the  Bible.  Of  this  the  most  obvious  instance  is  the 
requesting  of  the  brethren's  prayers  (e.  g.,  i  Thess.  v  :  25  ;  2d 
Thess.  iii :  i,)  and  this  case  alone,  Rome  thinks,  would  be 
enough  to  rebut  the  Protestant  objections  that  such  interces- 
sion interferes  with  the  mediatorial  honours  of  Christ.  But, 
say  they,  there  are. numerous  instances  of  more  definite  inter- 
vention, where  the  merit  of  a  saint  availed  for  other  men  ex- 
pressly ;  or  where,  (better  still,)  the  pardon  of  men  was 
suspended  on  the  efforts  of  some  eminently  meritorious  saint  in 
their  behalf.  (See  Gen.  xx  :  7;  xxvi  :  5;  i  Kgs.  xi  :  12,  et 
passim  ;  Job.  xlii  :  8 ;  Luke  vii  :  3-6.  And  they  assert  the 
actual  intercession  of  angels  in  heaven  is  taught.  (Gen.  xlviii  : 
16 ;  Rev.  V  :  8,  or  viii  :  3.) 

Rome  argues  also,  reciprocally,  that  the  worship  of  saints 
and  angels  implies  their  mediation  ;  because  the  only  thing  for 
which  we  can  petition  them,  consistently  with  theism,  is  their 
intercession.  Hence  all  the  rational  and  scriptural  arguments 
in  favor  of  saint-worship,  are  by  inference,  arguments  in  favor  of 
their  mediation.  See,  then,  such  considerations  and  such  texts 
as  these:  God  commands  an  appropriate  reverence  of  teachers, 
magistrates,  parents,  kings.  Can  we  believe  that  He  intends  no 
proportionable  honor  of  these  more  beneficent  and  majestic 
beings  ?  Can  it  be  wrong  to  ask  their  aid  with  Christ,  when  we 
should  esteem  it  pious  to  ask  the  aid  of  Christian  friends  on 
earth?  Surely  these  glorified  creatures  have  not  become  less 
benevolent  toward  us,  or  less  acceptable  to  Christ,  by  reaching 
heaven.  Then  see  scriptural  instances  (Gen.  xviii:  2-23  ;  xix  : 
i;  xxxii :  26;  Josh,  v :  14. 

The  closing  argument  of  Rome  is  from    tradition,  and  the 
Apocrypha. 

One  valid  reply,  though  the  least  one,  is,  that  all  such  appeals 
to  the  mediation  of  the  saints   or  angels  in 
^^  ^^^'  heaven,  are  superstitions.    As  to  dead  saints, 

the  Scripture  representation  is,  that  they  are  effectually  severed 
from  all  earthly  relations,  and  are  done  with  all  earthly  interests. 
Rev.  xiv  :  13.  They  "rest  from  their  labors."  i  Tim.  vi :  7.  "For 
we  brought  nothing  into  this  world,  and  it  is  certain  we  can 
carry  nothing  out."  Isa.  Ivii:  2.  "  He  shall  enter  into  peace; 
they  shall  rest  in  their  beds."  Eccles.  ix :  6.  "Neither  have 
they  any  more  a  portion  forever  in  anything  that  is  done  under 
the  sun."  Job.  iii :  17.  "There  the  weary  be  at  rest."  xiv:  21. 
"  His  sons  come  to  honour,  and  he  knoweth  it  not ;  and  they 
are  brought  low,  but  he  perceiveth  it  not  of  them."  The  sim- 
ple idea  of  asking  a  share  in  the  prayers  of  dead  friends,  if  it 
were  all  of  the  Romish  doctrine,  would  be  thus  shown  to  be 
only  foolish  and    superstitious ;  for  since  we  know  we  have  no 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  479 

access  to  them,  our  words  are  thrown  away.  It  may  be  urged, 
that  though  this  be  true  as  to  the  dead  saints,  it  may  not  hold 
as  to  the  angels,  who  do  have  intercourse  with  earth,  as  they 
are  "sent  forth  to  minister  to  them  who  shaU  be  heirs  of  salva- 
tion." Our  answer  is,  that  the  Scriptures  only  teach  an  inter- 
course on  one  side  ;  they  may  know  some  of  our  acts  and 
needs ;  we  know  nothing  of  their  nearness  or  absence.  So  that, 
as  to  the  angels  likewise,  this  attempted  intercourse  is  wholly 
unwarranted  by  Scripture,  and  therefore  superstitious.     But : 

Second,  in  our  ignorance  of  their  nearness  or  absence,  we 
can  never  know  that  they  hear  our  plea  for  their  inter- 
cession, without  imputing  to  them  divine  attributes.  This  fact 
was  briefly  stated  in  our  31st  Lecture.  Thus  the  doctrine  of 
their  intercession  is  idolatrous  in  its  tendencies,  and  a  robbery 
of  God.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the  more  popular  gods  and 
goddesses  of  the  Romish  pantheon,  the  Virgin,  Peter,  Gabriel ; 
to  whom  Romanists  the  world  over  are  generally  praying.  They 
must  have  omnipresence  to  be  with  their  votaries  in  vari- 
ous lands  at  the  same  time ;  omniscience,  to  discriminate, 
understand  and  judge  wisely  of  their  varied  requests;  omnipo- 
tence, to  bear  the  burden  of  care  laid  upon  them ;  infinite  benevo- 
lence, to  make  them  wiUing  to  bear  so  much  care  and  take  so 
much  trouble  for  others ;  and  immutability,  to  be  a  secure  reli- 
ance for  the  wants  of  a  priceless  soul.  The  poor  subterfuge  of 
the  hypothesis  of  the  saints'  beholding  all  earthly  affairs  /;/  speculo 
Triiiitatis,  has  been  exposed  ;  it  only  pretends  to  meet  one  of 
the  points  we  have  here  made. 

Third.  Were  the  design  of  papists  merely  to  seek  a  com- 
munion in  the  prayers  of  dead  saints  and  angels,  it  would  only 
be  superstitious  and  idolatrous.  But  this  does  not  at  all  sat- 
isfy them.  The  essential  peculiarity  of  their  doctrine  is,  that 
the  mediatory  access  of  these  holy  creatures  is  founded  on 
their  merits  with  God.  This  their  divines  expressly  teach  ;  and 
the  hymns  to  which  we  cited  the  student,  expressly  assert  this 
element  of  doctrine.  But  it  is  expressly  injurious  to  Christ, 
utterly  false,  and  indeed  impious.  No  one  who  comprehended 
the  rudiments  of  either  the  Covenant  of  Works,  or  of  that  of 
Grace,  would  ever  dream  of  making  the  supererogatory  merit  of 
an  unfallen,  much  less  of  a  fallen  creature,  a  basis  for  an 
imputed  righteousness.  In  that  sense  the  creature  cannot 
merit.  Take  the  case  of  Abraham,  Gen.  xx  :  7.  The  Romish 
argument  is  ruined  by  the  fact  that  Abraham  was  himself  "jus- 
tified by  faith."  If  he  was  himself  a  sinner,  accepted  in  the 
.  righteousness  of  another,  how  could  he  have  supererogatory 
merit  to  spare  for  a  fellow-sinner?  Job  is  mentioned,  xlii :  8, 
as  sacrificing  for  his  erring  friends ;  Because  he  was  righteous. 
But  see  the  6th  verse,  where  Job  avows  his  utter  sinfulness. 
Surely,  then  he  was  not  righteous  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  a 
meritorious  mediator.      Job    was    directed    to  sacrifice  for  his 


480  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

friends.  What?  Himself?  No;  but  bullocks  and  rams, 
tpyical  of  the  "  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world."  This  tells  the  whole  story :  that  his  intervention  was 
ministerial,  and  not  mediatorial.  As  to  King  David,  i  Kings  xi : 

12,  compare  David's  own  language,  Ps.  xxxii:  i,  2.  It  is  God's 
regard  for  His  own  gracious  covenant  with  David,  and  His  own 
fidelity,  which  leads  Him  to  favour  Solomon.  David  himself, 
although  comparatively  a  faithful  ruler,  was  indebted  to  God's 
mercy  both  in  his  personal  and  official  capacities,  for  escaping 
condemnation.  If  Christ  made  full  expiation  for  our  sins,  how 
can  other  intercessors  be  intruded  without  an  insult  to  the  suf- 
ficiency of  His  sacrifice  and  intercession?  Is  the  plea  this : 
that  He  intercedes  with  the  Father ;  while  the  lower  mediators 
intercede  with  Him?  I  reply  :  Why  may  we  not  directly 
obey  His  gracious  command:  "Come  unto  Me,  all  ye  that 
labour?"  Does  the  same  argument  which  persuades  us  to  go 
to  the  Virgin  to  ask  her  Son  to  ask  His  Father  to  save  us,  also 
require  us  to  seek  another  intermediary  between  us  and 
Mary?  If  the  Papist  says  "yes,"  to  this  question,  then  by  the 
same  argument  we  shall  need  still  a  second  intermediary 
between  us  and  the  one  who  is  to  commend  us  to  Mary ;  and 
we  have  a  ridiculous  regressus,  which  may  be  endless  ;  we  have 
to  sro  all  around  the  world,  in  order  to  reach  Christ.  But  if  .a 
negative  answer  be  given,  then  the  Papist  must  answer  this 
question :  Why  does  Mary  need  an  intermediary  between  us 
and  her,  less  than  Jesus  does  ?  This  implies  that  she  is  more 
benevolent  and  placable  than  Christ  !  "But  greater  love  hath 
no  man  than  this  that  he  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends." 

The  student  should  know,  that  this  theory  of  creature- 
mediation  is  not  only  condemned  by  the  utter  silence  of  the 
word  and  the  express  and  implied  assertion  of  truths  incom- 
patible with  it :  but  that  it  has  been  articulately  examined  and 
rejected  in  the  Scriptures.  That  inspired  refutation,  as  it  is 
seen  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  furnishes  us  the  best  pos- 
sible argument.  It  is  substantially  our  third  argument.  The 
Judaizing  Gnostics  were  infesting  the  Colossian  church  with  this 
very  theory :  that  the  saving  work  of  Christ  must  be  supple- 
mented by  the  intercession  of  some  super-angelic  beings  ;  (See 
Ch.  ii  :  18,)  and  by  the  practice  of  asceticism,  (ii  ;  21).  The 
first  of  these  innovations  the  Apostle  meets,  with  admirable 
sagacity,  by  laying  down  a  few  indisputable,  gospel-statements. 
Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  hath  already  made  for  us  a 
sacrifice  in  His  blood,  so  complete  as  to  secure  to  believers  a 
full  justification  and  an  actual  translation  into  God's  family,  (i  : 

13,  15,  22).  This  our  Priest  is  the  Image  of  God,  eternal,  the 
creator  and  actual  ruler  of  all  creatures,  including  these  very 
thrones  and  dominions  proposed  as  angelic  intercessors,  (verse 
16,  17,)  so  that  instead  of  their  guiding  Him,  He  governs  them  : 
and  they  themselves  derive  their  heavenly  adoption  (not  indeed 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  48 1 

from  His  sacrifice,)  but  from  His  ministerial  providence,  (verse 
20).  This  Divine  Christ  is  also  human,  (ii  :  3-10,)  so  that  He  is 
as  near  akin  to  us  as  any  advocate  can  be  :  just  as  truly  our 
kinsman,  as  near  by  blood,  as  approachable,  as  tender,  as  it  is 
possible  for  Peter  or  Paul,  or  Mary  to  be.  Whatever  love  and 
beneficence  these  have,  they  received  from  Him.  Thus  He  has 
in  Himself  all  possible  qualifications  for  the  intercessory  work ; 
all  the  higher  (verses  3  and  9,)  and  all  the  softer  and  gentler. 
Hence,  (verse  10,)  the  believer  is  "  complete  in  Him."  Christ  so 
completely  satisfies  the  demands  of  an  intercessory  work,  that 
no  room  is  left  for  any  other  intercessor ;  even  as  His  righteous- 
ness so  satisfies  the  claims  of  law,  that  there  is  no  room  for  any 
ritual  or  ascetic  righteousness  to  procure  fuller  adoption.  This, 
in  a  word,  is  the  Apostle's  argument.  That  Christ's  priestly 
work  is  such,  it  is  not  possible  that  any  other  intercessory 
agency  can  be  needed,  or  be  added.  The  plea,  that  the 
Apostle  discards  the  intercession  of  the  Gnostic  ceons,  because 
they  are  imaginary  beings,  is  of  no  avail ;  because  his  argu- 
ment is  evidently  construed  designedly,  (see  Ch.  i  :  16,)  so  as  to 
hold,  equally,  whether  the  creatures  invoked  might  be  real,  or 
not.  In  conclusion  of  this  head,  it  should  be  noted,  that  the 
vital  point  in  the  popish  theory  is,  that  these  creature-mediators 
have  an  imputable  merit  of  their  own,  to  plead  for  us.  Hence 
the  cases  they  cite,  where  Christians  ask  an  interest  in  each 
others'  prayers,  are  wholly  inapplicable,  and  their  citation  is 
indeed,  uncandid. 

The  question  of  angelic  mediation  may  be  easily  disposed  of. 
The  only  instances  in  which  an  angel  is  wor- 
M^diSd!^'''''"'^  "^"^'^  shipped,  are  those  of  the  worship  of  the  Angel 
of  the  Covenant,  the  eternal  Word.  Let  the 
student  examine  all  the  cases  of  angel-worshp  claimed  by  the 
Romanists,  and  he  will  find  that  each  one  is  a  worship  of  that 
Divine  Person.  We  are  referred  to  Rev.  v  :  8,  and  viii  :  3,  for 
instances  of  angelic  mediation.  In  the  first,  the  odours  pre- 
sented by  the  four  living  creatures,  and  the  four  and  twenty 
elders,  are  their  own.  They  both,  beyond  doubt,  symbolize  the 
ransomed  Church  :  (see  verse  9,)  and  the  prayers  they  present 
are  simply  their  own.  In  Rev.  viii  ;  3,  we  assert  that  the  great 
Angel,  who  takes  the  golden  censer,  and  offers  the  incense,  is 
Christ;  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant  again.  It  is  objected  that 
the  Redeemer  has  already  appeared  in  the  scene,  as  "  the 
Lamb  in  the  midst  of  the  throne."  This  is  no  valid  objection 
to  our  exposition.  The  natures  and  functions  of  Christ  are  so 
glorious  and  full,  that  one  symbol  fails  to  exhaust  them.  Hence 
the  multiplication  of  symbols  for  the  same  Divine  Figure,  even 
in  the  same  scene,  is  not  unusual  in  the  prophets.  The  symbol 
of  the  Lamb  represents  Christ's  humanity,  the  victim  of  justice, 
while  that  of  the  Angel  conveys  to  us  Christ  the  prophet,  and 
intercessor,  and  king  ;  a  priest  upon  his  throne.     There  is,  then. 


482  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

no  exegetical  difficulty  in  receiving  this  angel  as  a  symbol  of 
Christ ;  and  the  coherency  of  this  view,  with  the  whole  passage, 
and  the  whole  Scripture,  every  way  recommends  it. 

In  conclusion,  the  powerful  demonstration  which  the  Scrip- 
ture gives  us  against  creature  worship,  is  the  strongest  proof 
against  creature  mediation  ;  for  if  they  mediated,  they  must  be 
worshipped. 

The  Scripture  testimony  must  hold  the  fifth,  and  crowning 
place.  We  have  heard  the  Apostle  assert,  (i  Tim.  ii  :  5,)  that 
as  there  is  one  God,  there  is  one  Mediator,  between  God  and 
men  ;  and  that  this  is  the  Being  who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all.  As  the  words,  "  one  God,"  doubtless  express  the  exclusive 
unity  of  God,  so  we  are  bound  to  construe  the  connterpart 
words,  "  one  Mediator,"  in  the  same  way.  And  it  is  implied 
that  He  who  mediates  must  have  given  the  adequate  ransom, 
on  which  to  found  His  plea.  So,  our  Saviour  declares,  (Jno.  xiv  : 
6,)  "  No  man  cometh  to  the  Father  but  by  me,"  and  Peter, 
(Acts  iv  :  12,)  "  There  is  none  other  name  under  heaven,  given 
among  men,  whereby  ye  must  be  saved."  So,  the  words  of 
Christ,  (Jno.  vi  :  37,)  "  Him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out,"  at  least  prove  that  any  otlier  intercessor  is  super- 
fluous. It  is  said,  that  affirmations  do  not  prove  the  counter- 
part negative.  But  when  we  find  the  Scriptures  full  of  such 
passages  as  Rom.  viii  :  34  ;  Heb.  viii  :  25  ;  i  Jno.  ii  :  i,  2, 
which  all  assert  with  emphasis  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  our 
Mediator ;  and  that  there  is  an  absolute  silence  throughout  the 
Bible  as  to  any  other,  even  this  proof  is  complete. 

Feeble  efforts  are  made  to  break  the  force  of  this  testi- 
mony. To  show  that  saints  do  make  imputable  merit  for  their 
brethren,  Papists  point  us  to  Col.  i  :  24,  where  Paul  claims  that 
"  he  is  filling  up  that  which  is  behind  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
for  his  body's  sake,  which  is  the  church."  We  reply  that  this 
construction  makes  the  Apostle  here  teach  precisely  what  he 
repudiates  in  i  Cor.  i  :  13,  "  Was  Paul  crucified  for  you  ?  "  The 
scope  of  his  argument  requires  us  to  construe  this  question  : 
Was  Paul  a  propitiation  for  you  ?  Has  Christ  any  rival  to  di- 
vide his  credit  or  claim  as  the  sole  propitiation  ?  No.  Paul  was 
afterwads  beheaded  and  Peter  crucified.  Shall  we  give  so  pre- 
posterous a  sense  to  the  argument  that  the  opponent  could, 
after  these  events,  meet  the  apostolic  negative  with  a  flippant 
'  Yes  '  and  say :  "  Yes,  both  Paul  and  Peter  have  died  for  the 
Church,  and  so,  Christ  is  now  divided,  and  the  threefold  faction 
is  legitimate."  It  is  only  the  ministerial  and  exemplary  features 
of  Christ's  sufferings,  in  which  the  Apostle  claims  a  share  in 
Colossians.  In  that  sense,  every  true  labourer  and  martyr  is 
still  furthering  the  work  which  Christ  began.  But  His  suffer- 
ings alone  could  be  vicarious. 

The  attempt  is  made  to  escape  the  force  of  the  places 
which  assert  the  oneness  of  Christ's  intercession,  by  saying  that 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  483 

He  is  the  only  Mediator  of  Redemption  ;  saints  and  angels  are 
Mediators  of  Intercession.  On  this  subterfuge  I  remark  :  (a) 
t  Tim.  ii  :  5,  asserts  the  singleness  of  Christ's  intercessory  work 
first,  and  at  least  as  pointedly  as  of  His  ransoming  work,  (b) 
Since  intercession  is  grounded  only  in  redemption  by  satisfac- 
tion, the  two  kinds  of  mediators  must  be  one.  (c)  Romanists 
themselves  undermine  their  own  distinction  by  impiously 
ascribing  to  their  creature-intercessors  an  imputable  merit  as 
the  necessary  ground  of  their  influence  with  Christ. 

The  consequences  of  this  doctrinal  error  give  us  the  strong- 
est practical  argument  against  it.  It  has  been  the  means  of 
thrusting  Christ  aside,  out  of  the  thoughts  and  affections  of  Pap- 
ists, until  Mary  and  the  saints  attract  a  larger  share  of  wor- 
ship than  the  Son  of  God.  As  the  idea  of  creature-Mediators 
is  virtually  pagan,  it  has  thrown  an  almost  pagan  aspect  over 
the  Romish  countries. 

The  words  Messiah,  Christ,  mean  "Anointed,"  in  allusion 
to  the  spiritual  unction  bestowed  on  Christ, 
w£n''''''  '^''°'''*^"^-  This  was  appropriate  to  all  His  offices  ;  wit- 
ness the  anointing  of  Aaron,  Saul,  David, 
Solomon,  Elisha.  The  thing  typified  by  the  oil,  was  spiritual 
endowment ;  and  this  was  bestowed  without  measure  on  Christ. 
(See  Ps.  xlv  :  2  ;  Is.  xi  :  2  ;  xlii  :  i  ;  Ixi  :  i,  &c  ;  Matt,  iii  :  16  ; 
Jno.  iii  :  34 ;  Acts  x  :  38,  &c.)  The  seasons  of  this  anointing 
were,  not  a  journey  into  heaven  during  the  forty  days'  tempta- 
tion— a  notion  unknown  to  Scripture,  and  moreover  refuted  by 
Luke  ii  :  46,  47, — but  His  birth  and  baptism  especially.  The 
immediate  seat  of  these  spiritual  influences  was  His  humanity. 
His  divinity  was  already  infinite,  perfect  and  immutable.  He  is 
Himself  a  source  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  God.  The  consequence 
was,  to  make  Him,  not  infinite  as  to  His  humanity,  nor  incapa- 
ple  of  progress,  but  perfectly  holy,  and  wise,  pure,  zealous, 
faithful,  &c.,  above  all  others.  All  forms  of  grace  appropriate 
to  a  perfect  man  acted  in  Him,  in  such  manners  as  were  suit- 
able to  His  Person. 

That  Christ  fulfils,  as  Mediator,  the  three  offices  of 
Prophet,  Priest  and  King,  is  proved  by  this 
ThL,  2d' Why  ?  '  argument.  We  find  these  three  offices  pred- 
icated of  Him  in  Scripture  in  a  specific  and 
pointed  manner,  while  all  other  terms  of  function  or  service 
applied  to  Him  as  "  Servant,"  "  Elect,"  "  Messenger,"  &c.,  are 
rather  to  be  regarded  as  general  appellatives.  For  the  pro- 
phetic office,  see  Heb.  i  :  i  ;  Is.  xi  :  2,  xlii  :  i,  2,  Ixi  :  i  ;  Deut. 
xviii  :  15,  with  Acts  iii  :  22-26  ;  Is.  xlix  :  6;  John  iv  :  25.  For 
the  priestly,  see  Ps.  ex  :  4;  Heb.  viii  :  i,  &c.,  passim  ;  i  John 
ii  :  I.  Kingly,  Ps.  ii  :  6  ;  Is.  ix  :  ^,  y  \  Ps.  ex  :  i  ;  Zech.  vi  : 
12-14,  &c.,  I  Cor.  i  :  30,  displays  all  three  offices. 

That  the  offices  of  Christ  are  these  three,  we  prove  again 
by  showing  in  detail,  that  all    His   mediatorial  works   can  be 


484  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

referred  to  one  or  more  of  these  three  classes.  All  is  either 
instructing,  or  atoning,  or  interceding,  or  conquering  and  ruling 
or  several  of  them  together.  The  necessity  for  these  offices, 
(which  we  show)  also  proves  it.  Man  lay  under  three  evils — 
ignorance,  guilt,  rebellion.  And  redemption  consists  of  three 
parts — announcing,  purchasing  and  applying  salvation. 

The  proof  has  already  been  presented,  that  Christ  per- 
forms the  office  of  a  Prophet. 

The  Prophet  is  God's  Spokesman,  i^'']^^  either  to  enforce, 

reveal  or  predict.  Christ,  in  the  highest  sense, 
Wo°k^'lf;^rSagt    did   all.      For   definition    of    His   prophetic 

work,  see  Cat.,  Que.  24.  The  work  of  our 
Savior  had  three  different  stages,  ist,  from  the  fall  to  His  bap- 
tism by  John;  2d,  during  His  personal  ministry  until  His  ascen- 
sion ;  3d,  thence  to  the  final  consummation.  During  all  these 
stages.  He  has  carried  on  His  prophetic  work,  by  these  agencies 
common  to  the  three  :  His  Revelation  given  to  us  by  the  hand 
of  Prophets  and  Apostles :  His  Spirit  applying  that  revelation, 
and  giving  understanding  and  love  ;  His  providence,  directing 
our  conduct  and  the  events  happening  us,  including  a  constant, 
universal  and  particular  control  of  our  mental  laws  and  states, 
as  well  as  physical.  (This  trenches  on  His  kingly  powers). 
But,  during  the  first  stage,  Christ  acted  as  Prophet,  in  addition, 
by  His  theophanies,  for  which  see  Hengstenberg's  Christol,  vol. 
i,  pp.  164-170,  and  His  Prophets,  see  i  Pet.  i  :  10,  11. 

During  the  second  stage,  Christ  literally  fulfilled  the  work 
of  a  Prophet  in  His  own  person,  by  inculcating  truths  known, 
revealing  truths,  and  predicting  future  events.  During  the  last 
stage.  He  gave  His  Holy  Ghost  to  Apostles  and  Evangelists, 
thus  enduing  their  teachings  with  His  own  authority.  See  John 
xvi  :  12-15  ;  Acts  i  :  8  ;  xv  :  28 ;  ii  :  4 ;   i  Thess.  i  :  5. 

Dick   contrasts   Christ's    prophetic  work  with    that  of  all 

other  Prophets,  in  its  fullness,  its  perspicuity, 
H^Zt!;if''    (arising   from    His    fuller   endowments    and 

knowledge,  as  well  as  from  a  clearer  dispen- 
sation), its  giving  realities  instead  of  types,  its  authority,  arising 
from  His  divinity,  and  its  efficacy,  arising  from  His  divine  power 
to  send  forth  spiritual  influences  along  with  His  word.  But 
when  we  say  Christ  was  fuller  as  a  revealer,  let  us  not  fall  into 
the  Socinian's  error,  who,  to  make  a  nodus  vindice  digmis,  while 
they  deny  Christ's  vicarious  work,  teach  that  Chi  ist  not  only 
developed,  but  made  substantial  additions  to,  and  alterations  in, 
the  Old  Testament.  A  perfect  and  holy  God  could  not  reveal 
a  faulty  code.  See  also  Matt,  v  :  17 ;  Mark  xii  :  31  ;  Rom.  xiii : 
9.  And  if  the  pretended  cases  of  alteration  be  examined,  they 
will  be.  found  supported  by  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament. 


LECTURE  XLI. 


SYLLABUS. 

11.  Prove  that   Christ  is  truly  a  Priest.     What  the  several  Parts  of  a   Priest's 
Functions  ?     What  the  Peeuliarities  of  Christ's  priesthood  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  8,  9.  Dick,  Lect.  56.  Anselm,  Ctir  Deus  Homo, 
pt.  i,  ch.  12,  and  13.  Ridgley,  Qu.  44,  |  i,  2.  "The  Atonement,"  by  Rev. 
Hugh  Martin,  ch.  3.     Hodge's  Theo.,  vol.  ii,    pt.  iii,  ch.  6. 

12.  Prove  against  Socinians,  &c.,  the  Necessity  of  Satisfaction,  in  order  to  Remis- 
sion of  Sin. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  10,  with  Loc.  iii,  Qu.  19.  Thornwell,  Vol.  ii,  Art.  5. 
Dick,  Lect.  56.  Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  3,  \  i.  Hodge's  Theo.,  pt.  iii  (Vol.  ii),  ch. 
7.  Ridgley,  Qu.  44,  §  3.  "  Magee  on  Atonement.-'  A.  A.  Hodge  on  Atone- 
ment, chs.  5,  6.     Watson's  Theo.  Inst.  ch.  19,  bk.  ii,  ch.  8. 

'  I  ^HE  proof  that  Christ  is  a  true  and  real  Priest,  would  begin 
with  texts  such  as  Ps.  ex  :  4;   Heb.  v  :  5  ;  viii  \  \,  et  pas- 
sim.    Were  there  no  Socinian  evasion,  these 
PriJst.  ^^"'^  *^^  '^'"^    would  end  the  debate.     But  their  plea  is  that 
Peter  (Epistle  i,  Ch.  ii :  9),  and  John  (Rev.  i :  6, 
call  Christians   generally  Priests.     But  since  the  name  is  thus 
applied  to  persons  who  only  render  to  God  the  oblation  of  their 
thankful  service  and  devotion,  its  application  to  Christ  does  not 
prove  any  more.     Hence,  they  assert,  it  is  vain  for  Calvinists  to 
quote  texts  which  call  Christ  a  Priest,  as  proof  that  he  was  prop- 
erly so,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  Hebrew  |m3  or  Greek    hpeu:: 

And  they  attempt  to  further  their  evasion  by  saying  that  Christ 
is  a  Priest  only  in  heaven,  where  He  performs  the  intercessory 
function.  If  they  can  gain  assent  to  this,  since  there  is  no  suf- 
fering in  heaven,  they  effectually  exclude  Christ's  proper  sacri- 
fice and  expiatory  work.  To  meet  these  cunning  subterfuges 
then,  we  must  proceed  farther,  and  show  that  Christ  is  called 
Priest  in  wholly  another  sense  from  believers,  and  that  He  liter- 
ally performs  the  two  peculiar  functions  of  that  office — sacrifice 
and  intercession. 

This  argument  leads  us  to  anticipate  the  evidences  by 
which  Christ's  sufferings  are  shown  to  be  truly  vicarious.  The 
points  will  therefore  be  briefly  stated  here.  In  Heb.  v  :  I,  we 
have  an  exact  definition  of  a  priest,  as  a  person  "ordained  for 
men,  from  among  whom  he  is  taken,  in  things  pertaining  to 
God,  that  He  may  offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins." 
Such,  we  may  add,  is  precisely  the  meaning  attached  to  the 
word  by  all  men,  including  pagans.  The  priestly  office  is  a 
mediatorial  one.  Its  necessity  arises  out  of  man's  sin  and 
guilt,  which  exclude  him  from  immediate  access  to  a  holy  God. 
The  priest  is  the  intermediary^  who  goes  for  him.  Hence,  he 
must  have  a  sacrifice  with  which  to  expiate  sin  and  propitiate 
'God  ;  and  he  must  found  his  plea  for  his  clients  on  this  as  the 

485 


486  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ransom  price.  No  Jew,  Pagan,  or  Christian  (not  perverted  by 
Socinian  views)  ever  conceived  of  a  priest  as  anything  else 
than  this.  But  it  is  far  more  conclusive  to  say,  that  the  Epistle, 
after  this  definition  of  a  priest,  immediately  asserts  that  Christ 
was  made  our  high  priest.  The  subsequent  chapters  assert  that 
He  was  formally  and  solemnly  ordained  to  the  office  ;  that  He 
acted  for  others,  and  not  for  Himself  in  that  office ;  that  He 
transacted  for  us  with  God  ;  and  that  He  offered  a  vicarious 
sacrifice.  These  traits  are  conclusive  of  His  real  priesthood. 
He  was  appointed  priest  (Heb.  vii  :  20)  with  peculiar  emphasis. 
He  made  His  soul  a  sacrifice  for  sin  by  dying  ;  while  Christians, 
when  described  as  metaphorical  priests,  only  make  their  ser- 
vices a  thank-offering  by  living.  See  Rom.  xii  :  i.  That  the 
Christian's  oblation  is  only  metaphorical,  the  apostle  expresses 
by  a  beautiful  paradox ;  He  is  a  "  living  sacrifice."  But  a 
sacrifice  proper  is  a  thing  that  dies !  It  is  a  very  strong  evi- 
dence that,  while  the  official  name,  priest,  was  so  familiar  to 
Jews,  it  is  never  once  applied  to  gospel-ministers  in  the  New 
Testament.  They  are  "teachers,"  "presbyters,"  "ministers," 
"  angels  of  the  Churches,"  "  ambassadors,"  "  servants,"  but 
never  ''hozlz !  Finally,  Christ  is  the  antitype  to  a  long  line  of 
typical  priests.  See  Heb.  viii  :  4,  5  ;  ix  :  ii.  That  these 
Levitical  officers  represented  in  type,  the  very  idea  of  the 
priesthood  proper,  is  demonstrated  by  every  feature  of  their 
service.  The  animals  they  slew  died  vicariously.  Every  act 
was  mediatorial,  and  their  whole  function  began  and  was  con-- 
tinned  with  expiation.  Now,  by  the  rule  that  the  body  must 
be  more  substantial  than  the  shadow  which  it  casts  before, 
Christ's  work,  as  antitype,  must  at  least  be  as  priestly  as  that 
of  the  prefiguring  emblems. 

The  peculiarities  of  Christ's  priesthood  are:  i.  The  dig- 
nity of  His  person.  2.  The  solemnity  of  His  appointment,  by 
an  oath.  3.  His  combining  royalty  and  priesthood  like  Mel- 
chisedec.  4.  His  having,  like  him,  neither  predecessor  nor 
successor;  because,  5.  His  oblation  had  such  infinite  value  and 
complete  efficacy,  that,  6.  It  grounded  at  once  an  everlasting 
and  all  prevalent  intercession ;  and  that,  7.  Not  only  for  one 
man,  or  race,  but  for  all  the  Elect. 

The  argument   for  the  necessity  of  an  atonement  proceeds 
12.  Necessity  of  Sat-    chiefly  on  the  question,  whether  distributive 
isfaction  argued   from   justice  is  an  essential  moral  attribute  of  God  : 
God  s  Perfections.  ^^  whether,  as  Socinians  assert,  there  is  noth- 

ing in  His  nature  which  renders  it  less  natural  and  proper  for 
Him  to  remit  guilt  without  satisfaction,  than  to  create,  or  leave 
uncreated,  a  given  thing.  The  Socinians,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
order  to  evade  the  doctrine  of  a  vicarious  atonement,  deny 
both  the  necessity  of  it,  and  the  essential  justice  of  God. 

Bear  in  mind,  then,  that  in  this  whole  argument  we  attrib- 
ute to  God  all  the  perfections  which  make  Him  an  immutable 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  487 

and  infinite  Being.  We  shall  not  pause  to  argue  these  against 
Socinians,  but  refer  you  to  your  previous  course  of  theology. 
But  the  necessity  which  we  assert  for  God's  punishing  guilt 
is  only  moral.  It  is  not  a  physical  necessity 
Phylkal.^''''''"^  "°^  lil^e  that  which  ensures  that  fire  will  burn, 
supposing  the  presence  of  fuel,  and  that 
water  will  wet,  supposing  its  application.  Here,  then,  falls  the 
cavil  of  Socinus,  that  if  retributive  justice  be  made  an  essen- 
tial attribute  of  God,  its  exercise  must  be  conceived  of  as  inev- 
itable in  every  case,  because  of  God's  immutability,  (as  we  call 
it,)  so  that  mercy  in  every  case  would  be  impossible.  Divine 
immutability  does  not  imply  that  God  must  ever  act  in  modes 
mechanically  identical;  but  that  His  acting  must  always  be 
consistent  with  the,  same  set  of  essential  attributes.  As  cir- 
cumstances change.  His  very  immutability  requires  a  change 
of  outward  actings.  Again ;  for  God  to  effectuate  a  given 
part  of  His  decrees  of  mercy,  when,  in  time,  the 'conditions  of 
that  execution  are  first  in  existence,  is  no  change  of  purpose  in 
Him.  When  God  passes  from  wrath  to  reconciliation,  as  to  a 
given  sinner,  it  is  no  change  in  Him.  The  change  is  in  the 
sinner.  The  same  attributes  which  demanded  wrath  before, 
now  demand  peace  ;  because  the  sinner's  guilt  is  gone.  The 
proper  view  of  God's  immutable  perfections,  therefore,  leads  us 
to  conclude,  that  without  an  atonement  they  would  render  par- 
don of  sin  absolutely  and  universally  impossible  :  but  that, 
an  atonement  being  provided,  they  offer  no  obstacle  to  par- 
don. 

Again,  it  is  another  perversion  to  carry  the  idea  of  pecun- 
iary debt  so  far,  in  our  conceptions  of 
Compefood!  ^°^^  """^  g^i^^,  as  to  conceive  of  a  vicarious  atonement 
as  legal  tender.  When  a  security  comes  for- 
ward, and  offers  to  pay  the  whole  debt  of  the  poor  insolvent  in 
jail,  with  principal  and  interest,  cost  and  charges,  the  creditor 
must  accept  this  legal  tender ;  if  he  does  not,  he  cannot  claim 
payment  afterwards.  And  the  insolvent  demands  his  release  as 
of  right.  Now,  guilt  is  not  a  mere  debt,  in  this  sense.  It  is  a 
personal  obligation  to  penalty;  because  the  responsibility 
violated  was  strictly  personal ;  and  strict  justice  would  entitle 
the  ruler  to  hold  the  guilty  party  to  endure  that  penalty  in  him- 
self. Therefore,  when  the  personal  relation  to  law  is  waived  by 
the  ruler,  and  a  substitute  accepted,  there  is  an  act  of  grace, 
of  mercy.  This  is  the  answer  to  the  objection,  that  "  if  the 
necessity  of  the  atonement  be  asserted,  God  the  Father  per- 
forms no  act  of  grace,  and  deserves  no  thanks  for  letting  the 
transgressor  go  free.  He  has  exacted  the  last  penny,  and  the 
release  is  a  mere  act  of  justice."  To  our  Surety  it  is  ;  but  not 
to  us.  Besides,  was  there  no  grace  in  giving  us  the  surety  to 
pay  for  us  ? 

Socinians  clamorously  object,  that  we  who  teach  the  neces- 


488  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sity  of  an  atonement,  strip  God  of  those 
Anl?t;ti5sSon::    qualities  which  in  all  others  would  be  most 

noble,  generous  and  admirable  ;  a  willingness 
to  overlook  His  own  resentment,  and  magnanimously  forgive 
without  payment  of  the  injury,  where  penitence  was  expressed. 
That  we  represent  God  as  an  odious  and  cruel  being,  who 
would  rather  see  His  erring  creatures  damned,  no  matter  how 
penitent,  than  sacrifice  His  own  pique ;  and  who  is  determined 
to  pour  out  His  revenge  somewhere,  if  not  on  the  sinner,  on 
his  substitute,  before  He  will  be  satisfied.  These  cavils  are 
already  answered  by  the  above  view.  For  a  private  man  to  act 
thus  would  be  unamiable  ;  he  is  himself  a  sinner.  God  has  told 
him,  "Vengeance  is  Mine  ;  "  and  the  supreme  rule  of  the  man's 
life  is,  that  he  shall  do  everything,  forgiving  injuries  among  the 
rest,  for  God's  pleasure  and  honour.  But  God  is  Himself  the 
supreme  End  of  all  His  doings,  as  well  as  Chief  Magistrate  of  the 
Universe.  Turrettin,  Hill,  &c.,  also  appeal  to  other  distinctions, 
to  rebut  these  objections.  Four  things  may  be  considered  in  a 
transgression,  viewed  as  against  a  human  ruler.  The  debt  con- 
tracted thereby,  the  wrath  or  indignation  excited,  the  moral 
defilement  contracted  by  the  transgressor  in  the  eyes  of  the 
injured  party,  and  the  guilt,  or  obligation  to  legal  penalty, 
incurred.  Now,  the  plausibility  of  the  Socinian  cavil  arises 
wholly  from  regarding  the  first  three  elements  of  sin,  and  stu- 
diously averting  the  eyes  from  the  fourth.  So  far  as  the  injury 
done  me,  as  a  magistrate,  was  a  personal  debt  of  wrong, 
humanity  might  prompt  me  to  release  it  without  satisfaction 
rendered ;  for  that  element  of  debt  being  personal,  I  have  a 
personal  right  to  surrender  it  if  I  choose.  So  far  as  I  have  had 
a  personal  sense  of  indignation  and  resentment  excited  by  the 
wrong,  that  also  it  might  be  generous  and  right  in  me  to 
smother,  without  satisfaction,  in  compassion  to  the  wrong  doer. 
I  conceive  that  a  certain  element  of  moral  defilement  has  come 
on  him  by  his  evil  act,  which  constitutes  a  reason  for  punishing. 
If  he  amends  that  moral  defilement  by  sincere  penitence  and 
reform,  that  obstacle  to  an  unbought  pardon  is  also  removed. 
But  it  is  far  otherwise  with  the  debt  of  guilt  to  law,  of  which  I 
am  the  guardian.  That  is  not  a  debt  personal  to  me  ;  and  there- 
fore I,  as  lawgiver,  may  not  remit  it  without  satisfaction.  If  I 
do,  I  violate  my  trust  as  guardian  of  the  laws.  Such  is  their 
arguing,  and  it  is  just.  But  it  applies  to  God,  as  against  sin- 
ning creatures,  far  more  than  to  human  lawgivers.  And  the 
same  reasonings  which  show  that  the  human  ruler  ought  to 
surmount  the  first,  second,  and  third  elements  of  offence  in 
order  to  pardon,  do  not  apply  to  God.  The  human  lawgiver  is 
but  a  man,  and  the  transgressor  is  also  a  man,  his  brother,  and 
nearly  his  equal  in  God's' eye.  In  the  other  case,  the  offended 
party  is  infinite,  and  the  offender  His  puny,  absolute  property, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  489 

whom  God  may  and  ought  to  dispose  of  for  the  sovereign  grat- 
ification of  His  own  admirable  and  excellent  perfections. 

We  shall  not  say,  as  Hill  incautiouly  does  in  one  place, 
that  the  fact  that  God  is  a  Lawgiver  is  the 
r?  ^it^M  ^'^  °'^''  ^^^^  principle  on  which  the  doctrine  of  satis- 
faction rests  ;  although  we  shall,  in  its  proper 
place,  assign  it  due  importance.  The  importance  of  God's 
jnstice  being  protected,  does  not  arise  only  or  chiefly  from  the 
fact  that  the  order  of  His  universal  empire  is  concerned  therein. 
God  Himself,  and  not  His  creature's  well-being,  is  the  proper 
ultimate  end  of  His  own  actings,  as  well  as  of  our  deeds  of 
piety ;  a  doctrine  repugnant  indeed  to  all  Socinian  and  rational- 
istic views,  but  founded  in  reason  and  Scripture.  If  the  perfec- 
tions and  rights  of  God  are  such  that  it  is  proper  all  other 
beings  should  love  and  serve  Him  supremely,  by  what  argu- 
ment can  it  be  proved  that  He  should  not  do  so  likewise? 
Again :  He  being  before  all  things,  and  having  all  the  motives 
and  purposes  for  making  all  things  from  eternity,  while  as  yet 
nothing  was,  must  have  found  those  motives  only  in  Himself. 
He  being  the  only  Thing  existent,  there  was  no  where  else  to 
find  them.  Third  :  If  creatures  ought  to  render  the  supreme 
homage  of  their  powers  and  being  to  God,  ought  not  He  to 
receive  it?  i  Cor.  x  :  31.  Last,  to  make  any  thing  else  the 
ultimate  End  of  the  universe,  deposes  God,  and  exalts  that 
something  to  the  true  post  of  deity ;  to  which  God  is  made  to 
play  the  part  of  an  almighty  convenience.  Let  human  pride 
be  pulled  down.  As  for  Scriptures,  see  Prov.  xvi  :  4  ;  Is.  Ixi  : 
3  ;  Rom.  xi  :  36. 

God  ought,  therefore,  to  regard  transgression,  which  out- 
Satisfying  His  own    rages  His   holy   attributes   and  excites   His 
Justice   tlierefore   His    wrath,  in  a  very  different  way  from  that  proper 
chief  Motive.  ^^^  ^^  creatures,  sinners  ourselves,  when  our 

fellow-sinners  offend  us.  It  may  be  very  true  that  it  is  good, 
magnanimous,  for  one  of  us  to  forgive  injury  without  satis- 
faction, and  to  extirpate  our  indignation  for  the  sake  of  rescuing 
our  fellow-creature  from  suffering  the  punishment ;  but  the 
reasoning  does  not  hold,  when  applied  to  the  Supreme.  The 
executing  of  His  good  pleasure,  the  illustration  of  His  perfec- 
tions are,  for  Him,  more  proper  ends  than  the  continued  well- 
being  of  any  or  all  sinful  worlds,  bestowed  at  the  expense  of 
His  attributes.  It  is  a  more  proper  and  noble  thing  that  God 
should  please  Himself  in  the  acting  out  of  His  own  infinitely 
holy  and  excellent  attributes,  than  that  He  should  please  His 
whole  creation  by  bestowing  impunity  on  guilty  creatures.  And, 
therefore,  not  only  do  reasons  which  arise  out  of  God's  moral 
relations  to  His  creatures  as  their  Ruler,  but  yet  more  reasons 
arising  directly  out  of  His  own  supremacy  and  righteousness, 
require  Him  to  punish  guilt  without  fail. 


490  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES  ^ 

(a)  The  Scriptures  ascribe  to  God  holiness,  righteousness, 

and  justice,  in  a  sense  which  shows  them  to 
^  Holiness,  Justice,  and    ^^  essential  attributes.     See   Is.  vi  :  3  ;   Ps. 

Ixxxix  :  14 ;  v  :  4  ;  Gen.  xviii :  25  ;  Exod. 
xxxiv  :  7  ;  Hab.  i :  1 3  :  Rom.  i :  1 8-32  ;  ii :  6-1 1  ;  iii :  6,  &c.,  &c. 
Some  of  these  passages  bring  to  view  His  justitia  jmiversalis, 
or  the  general  rectitude  of  His  nature ;  and  some  His  adminis- 
trative justice,  as  dealing  with  His  moral  creatures.  Now,  we 
argue  from  the  former,  that  since  God  is  immutable,  and  this 
perfection  is  essential,  He  will  not,  and  by  a  moral  necessity 
cannot,  be  affected  by  moral  evil  as  He  is  by  good.  It  is 
impossible  that  His  feeling  and  will  can  confound  the  two,  can 
fail  to  be  opposed  to  sin,  and  favourable  to  rectitude.  But  God, 
while  His  will  is  governed  by  His  own  perfections,  is  absolutely 
free  ;  so  that  no  doubt  His  conduct  will  follow  His  will.  God's 
distributive  justice  we  naturally  conceive  as  prompting  Him  to 
give  every  one  His  due.  As  naturally  as  well  being  is  the  just 
equivalent  of  obedience,  just  so  naturally  is  suffering  the  equiva- 
lent of  sin;  and  justice  as  much  requires  the  punishment  of 
sin,  as  the  reward  of  merit.  To  fail  in  apportioning  its  desert 
to  either,  is  real  injustice.  Now,  does  not  God  assert  that  His 
ways  are  equal?  Shall  not  the  like  rule  guide  Him  which  He 
imposes  on  us  ?     See,  then,  Prov.  xvii  :  15  ;  Rom.  ii  :  6-1 1. 

Again  God  has  pledged  His  Truth  to  the  execution  of  penal 
sanctions.  He  has  threatened.  See  Numbers  xxiii  :  19.  The 
argument  is  enhanced  by  the  repetitions,  energy,  and  oaths, 
with  which  He  has  said  and  sworn,  the  wicked  shall  not  enter 
into  His  rest.  Hence  His  essential  attribute  of  truth  is  engaged 
to  require  satisfaction  for  guilt, 
(b)  The  argument  from  God's  moral  perfections  is  confirmed  by 

observing   His  administration   towards   man. 
His  Actual  Govern-    j^^  ^j^^  ^^.g^  revelation  made  to  man,  that  of 
ment.  , .  .        .  ,      ,  ,  ,        , 

paradise,  justice  was  declared  as  clearly  as 

grace.  Was  goodness  displayed  in  the  bounties  to  man,  and 
was  the  adoption  of  life  offered  to  Him  on  easy  terms  ?  Yet 
justice  added  the  threat,  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou 
shalt  surely  die."  As  soon  as  innocent  man  fell,  and  a  religion 
for  sinners  was  to  be  revealed,  the  foremost  point  of  this  creed 
was  the  necessity  that  sin  must  be  punished,  for  the  satisfaction 
of  divine  justice,  truth  and  holiness.  The  chief  aim  of  God, 
in  every  institution  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  was  obviously, 

to  make  this  prime  truth  stand  out  to  the 
siSdST^dS.''"  apprehension    of   sinners.     What    was    the 

prominent  addition  made  to  the  worship  of 
paradise  ?  Bloody  sacrifice  ;  and  that,  undoubtedly,  ordained 
by  God  ;  as  we  have  seen.  And  this  remained  the  grand  char- 
acteristic of  the  religion  for  sinners,  until  the  "  Lamb  of  God  " 
came  to  meet  the  great  demand  of  satisfaction.  Wherever  the 
Patriarchs  approached  the  throne  of  grace,  there  the  altar  must 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  49I 

be  raised,  from  the  day  Abel  worshipped  before  the  gates  of 

the  lost  Eden,  until  Christ  rent  the  veil  of  the  sanctuary.     The 

orisons  of  faith  and  penitence  must   be  accompanied  with  the 

streaming  blood  of  the  victim  and  the  avenging  fire  of  the  altar. 

Prayer  could  only  rise  to  heaven,  as  the  way  was  opened  for  it 

by  the  smoke  of  the  sacrifice.     God  was  thus  teaching  all  ages, 

this  foundation-truth  of  the  theology  of  redemption  that,  "  with 

out  the  shedding    of  blood,  there    was    no    remission."     Thus 

impressively  are  we  introduced  to  the  Levitical  argument. 

The  necessity  of  atonement  is  taught  in  all  the  Old  Testa- 

.     ment  sacrifices  (as  the  Gentile  sacrifices  are 

Argument  from  Sacn-     -u      4.      *.• r    >  •  4-      <.i 

{[(.Q^l  the  testimony  01    man  s    conscience   to  the 

same  truth).  The  Apostle  Paul,  as  already 
intimated,  makes  a  grand  induction  of  the  ritual  facts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  in  Heb.  ix  :  22.  "And  without  shedding  of 
blood  was  no  remission."  It  is  literally  true,  that  the  cere- 
monial law  remitted  no  trespass,  sin,  or  uncleanness,  without  a 
substitutionary  animal  death  ;  save  in  the  exception  for  the  very 
poor,  of  Levit.  v  :  ii.  Search  and  see.  The  theological  prin- 
ciple thus  set  forth  is  just  my  thesis  ;  the  necessity  of  satisfaction 
in  order  to  pardon.  Now,  there  is  no  idea  which  is  inculcated,  in 
the  whole  of  Revelation,  so  constantly,  so  early,  so  carefully. 
It  was  the  first  truth,  in  the  religion  of  redemption,  taught  to 
Adam's  family.  The  awful,  bloody  symbol  of  it  was  ever  pres- 
ent in  all  the  worship  of  the  Old  Testament  Church.  With 
God's  mind,  it  is  ever  the  first  and  strongest  thought.  With 
man's  unbelieving  mind,  it  is  the  last  and  least.  Indeed,  the 
contrast  here  is  amazing ;  and  the  stupidity  of  the  human  mind 
in  apprehending  this  first  rudiment,  is  one  of  the  strongest 
proofs  of  its  natural  deadness  in  sin.  God's  example,  in  per- 
petually obtruding  on  sinners  the  impressive  sacrificial  symbol 
of  this  truth,  should  be  instructive  to  pastors.  They  must  con- 
stantly urge  the  necessity  of  satisfaction. 

This  obstinate  obtuseness    is  manifested  at  once  by  the 
^   • .        ^  ^   crude  notions  of  the  people  and  the  refined 

Obstinate  Errors  of  i    ,  •  r  -i  11  tt  ^.-u 

gjjjners.  speculations  01  the  scholar.     Jiven  the  con- 

victed sinner  is  stubbornly  oblivious  of  the 
claims  of  God  upon  his  sins,  and  assigns  anything  rather  than 
the  true  ground,  his  repentance,  his  reformation,  his  anxieties, 
for  the  title  to  his  pardon.  When  these  "  refuges  of  lies"  are 
swept  away,  and  the  soul  is  left  desperate  and  cowering  before 
its  righteous  doom,  the  pastor  may  hold  up  the  gospel  doctrine 
of  satisfaction,  and  the  convicted  man  will  turn  from  it  stolid 
and  blind,  until  God  shines  into  his  heart.  Carnal  philosophy 
is  equally  prejudiced.  It  proposes  any  inconsequent  scheme 
rather  than  the  true  one,  to  account  for  the  punishment  of  sin, 
and  the  call  for  a  sacrifice  from  Christ.  One  tells  us,  that  suf- 
fering has  no  penal  significance,  but  is  the  regular  and  unavoid- 
able effect  of  natural  law  upon  creatures  organized  and  finite. 


492  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

as  though  that  law  were  anything  else  than  the  expression  of 
God's  moral  will :  and  as  though  He  had  not  told  us,  "  death 
came  by  sin,"  Another  tells  us,  that  primitive  justice  is  nothing 
but  "  benevolence  guided  by  wisdom,"  that  as  Love  is  God's 
only  moral  attribute,  the  only  ends  of  penalty  must  be  philan- 
thropic, that  it  is  but  a  prudent  expedient  to  protect  men  from 
the  miseries  involved  in  sin.  So,  when  they  come  to  explain 
the  sacrifice  of  Calvary,  they  give  any  other  than  the  true 
account  of  it.  Says  one  :  It  was  designed  to  attest  the  divine 
mercy  offered  us  in  the  gospel  promises.  Another  :  It  was  to 
set  us  a  splendid  example  of  long-suffering.  Another :  It  was 
to  break  our  hearts  by  the  spectacle  of  dying  love.  And 
others :  It  was  to  make  a  wholesome  exhibition  of  the  evil  of 
sin.  The  Scripture  saith  it  was  all  this  :  but  because  it  was 
more,  because  it  was  primarily  designed  to  make  satisfaction  for 
our  guilt. 

(c)  Many  minds,  like  the  great  jurist  Grotius',  have  deluded 
themselves  by  likening  God's  penal  adminis- 
Pena^ty  ReSeT'^^  °^  tration  to  that  of  the  civil  magistrate ;  which 
is,  in  a  large  degree,  an  expedient  to  repress 
the  mischiefs  of  transgression.  They  suppose  no  higher  aim 
is  to  be  imputed  to  God's  justice.  But  the  comparison  is  par- 
tial. God  has  reserved  to  Himself  the  supreme  function  of 
retribution,  delegating  to  earthly  rulers  only  the  temporary  and 
lower  purposes  of  law.  Yea,  even  if  the  magistrate  loses  sight 
of  the  true  ground  of  his  penalties  in  the  evil  desert  of  the  crimes 
he  punishes,  they  at  once  sink  from  the  rank  of  a  righteous 
expediency,  to  that  of  an  odious  and  unprincipled  artifice. 

That  the  benefit  of  the  culprit  is  not  the  true  end  of  pen- 
alty may  be  very  quickly  decided  by  the  fact,  that  many  of 
God's  most  notable  penalties  summarily  destroyed  their  objects; 
as  the  Flood,  doom  of  Sodom,  and  the  retributions  of  hell.  Of 
course  God  has  done  in  these  cases,  what  He  meant  to  do.  But 
they  say  :  God,  having  seen  that  the  amendment  of  these  sin- 
ners was  hopeless,  and  that  they  were  infallibly  drawing  on 
themselves  the  worst  mischiefs  of  sin,  made  examples  of  these 
for  the  good  of  others.  So  His  only  motive  is  still  benevolence, 
seeking  thus  to  overrule  the  unavoidable  calamities  of  the  few, 
to  the  "  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number."  Having  thus 
placed  a  fragment  of  truth  in  the  place  of  the  whole,  they 
sometimes  turn  on  us,  with  an  arrogant  contrast  between  the 
boasted  mildness  of  their  scheme,  and  what  they  call  the  venge- 
ful severity  of  ours.  Our  God,  say  they,  is  the  God  of  love. 
Yours  is  the  theology  of  ancient  barbarians,  who  sanctified 
their  vindictive  malice  under  the  name  of  vindicatory  justice, 
and  imagined  a  God  like  themselves,  pleased  with  the  fumes 
of  His  enemies'  blood.  They  say  ours  is  "the  theology  of  the 
shambles." 

But  let  us  see  how  this  declamation  will  stand   the   test  of 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  493 

reason  and  Scripture.  Is  God  any  better  pleased  with  a  holy 
creature  than  with  a  transgressor  ?  Of  course,  yes.  But  for 
what  is  He  better  pleased  with  the  holy?  For  his  righteous- 
ness. It  is  right  then  in  God  to  love  righteousness  ?  Of 
course,  yes :  Did  He  not,  He  would  be  Himself  unright- 
eous. But  righteousness  and  sin  are  the  opposite  poles  of 
character.  Just  as  the  attraction  of  the  one  end  of  the  magnet 
to  the  North  pole  is  the  repulsion  of  the  other  end  towards  the 
South  ;  so  to  love  holiness  is  to  hate  sin.  The  perfection,  then, 
which  prompts  God  to  the  amiable  work  of  rewarding  good 
desert,  is  the  same  perfection  which  consistently  prompts  to 
punish  ill  desert.  Hear  Anselm  of  Canterbury,  reasoning  with 
his  imaginary  opponent,  Boso. 

"To  remit  sin  "  (without  satisfaction)  "  is  nothing  else  than 
not  to  punish  it.  And  since  nothing  else  than  punishment  is  the 
right  adjustment  of  the  sin  that  has  not  been  satisfied  for,  if  it 
is  hot  punished,  it  is  left  unadjusted." — Boso.  "  What  you  say 
is  reasonable." — Anselm.  "But  it  is  not  becoming  for  God  to 
leave  anything  in  His  kingdom  unadjusted." — Boso.  "If  I  wish 
to  assert  otherwise,  I  fear  to  sin." — Anselm.  "  So  then  it  does 
not  become  God  to  leave  sin  thus  unpunished." — Boso.  "  So 
it  follows." — Anselm.  "  And  there  is  another  thing  that  fol- 
lows; that  if  sin  is  thus  left  unpunished,  it  will  be  just  the  same 
wiih  God  whether  one  sins  or  does  not  sin  ;  and  that  does  not 
befit  God." — Boso.  "  I  cannot  deny  it." — Anselm.  "  Look  at 
this  too.  Nobody  is  ignorant,  that  the  righteousness  of  men 
is  under  the  law;  so  that  the  measure  of  its  recompense  is  dis- 
pensed by  God  according  to  its  quantity." — Boso.  "  So  we 
believe." — Anselm.  "  But  if  sin  is  neither  paid  for  nor  pun- 
ished, it  is  subject  to  no  law." — Boso.  "I  cannot  understand 
it  otherwise," — Anselm.  "  Then,  unrighteousness,  if  it  be 
remitted  by  mere  mercy,  is  freer  than  righteousness  ?  And 
that  seems  extremely  unsuitable.  This  absurdity  also  is 
attached  to  it :  that  it  makes  unrighteousness  like  God,  in  that, 
just  as  God  is  subject  to  no  law,  so  unrighteous  is  not." 

This  pretended  resolution  of  punitive  justice  into  benev- 
olent expediency  is,  in  its  result,  impious  towards  God,  and 
practically  identical  with  the  selfish  system  of  morals.  We 
have  seen  above,  that  "man's  chief  end  is  to  glorify  God,  and 
enjoy  him  forever."-  This  humanitarian  scheme  says  that  this 
would  make  God  the.  supreme  egotist.  It  proposes  as  a 
more  suitable  supreme  end,  not  self,  but  mankind :  the 
advantage  of  the  greatest  number.  This  they  claim,  is  true 
disinterestedness.  But  is  not  that  which  is  made  our  highest 
ultimate  end  thereby  made  our  God  ?  It  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose  that  names  and  titles  are  decently  exchanged,  and 
man  still  called  the  creature,  and  Jehovah  the  God.  Virtu- 
ally, the  aggregate  of  humanity  is  made  our  deity,  by  bein<y 
made  our  moral  End  ;  and  Jehovah  is  only    retained,  if  retained. 


494  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

at  all,  as  a  species  of  omnipotent  conveniency  and  Servitor  to 
this  creature-God.  Further :  inasmuch  as  the  benevolent 
man  is  himself  a  part  of  this  aggregate  humanity,  which  is  his 
moral  End,  he  himself  is,  at  least  in  part,  his  own  supreme  end ! 
Here  the  supreme  selfishness  of  this  scheme  of  pretended  dis- 
interestedness begins  to  crop  out.  In  this  aggregate  humanity 
I  am  an  integer,  "  by  nature  equal  "  to  any  other.  What  then 
so  reasonable,  as  that  I  should  deem  the  humanity  embodied 
in  myself,  as  my  own  nearest  and  most  attainable  moral  End  ? 
Does  not  the  natural  instinct  of  self-love  point  to  this  conclu- 
sion ;  as  well  as  the  facts  that  I  cannot,  with  my  limited  nature 
benefit  all,  that  I  am  more  nearly  responsible  for  my  own  wel- 
fare, and  that  I  have  more  means  to  promote  it  with  certainty 
than  any  other  man's  ?  Hence,  the  properest  mode  to  promote 
"  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number,"  will  be  for  each 
one  to  make  his  own  personal  advantage  his  supreme  end  ! 
Here  the  abominable  process  from  these  utilitarian  premises,  is 
completed.  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins,  the  great  American  inventor 
of  this  scheme,  has  himself  carried  his  system  to  this  result, 
with  a  candour  which  is  amusing  for  its  simplicty  :  Says  he  : 
vol.  I  :  p.  475. 

"  As  every  person  is  nearest  to  himself,  and  is  most  in  his 
own  view,  has  opportunities  to  be  better  acquainted  with  his 
own  circumstances,  and  to  know  his  own  wants,  his  mercies  and 
enjoyments,  &c :  and  has  a  more  particular  care  of  his  own 
interest,  than  of  that  of  others :  is  under  greater  advant- 
age to  promote  his  own  happiness  than  others ;  his  disinter- 
ested universal  benevolence  will  attend  more  to  his  own  interest, 
and  he  will  have  more  and  stronger  exercises  of  it  respecting 
his  own  circumstances  and  happiness  than  those  of  others,  all 
things  being  equal :  not  because  it  is  his  own  interest,  but  for 
the  reason  just  given."  That  is  to  say;  his  virtue  will  be  to 
practice  supreme  selfishness,  provided  he  is  not  selfish  in  doing 
so !  Thus  this  boasted  scheme  resolves  itself  into  one  of  selfish 
expediency. 

This  theory  of  penalty  receives  the  following  refutation.  If 
it  is  only  a  benevolent  expedient  for  reform- 
em  woul'Jbrjifst^^'^'"  ^ng  sinners  and  repressing  sin,  then  the  expe- 
dient which  is  most  effectual  is  most  just.  If 
a  case  arises  in  which  the  criminal  and  those  like  him  will  be 
more  deterred  by  punishing  the  innocent  than  the  guilty,  it 
will  be  more  just  to  do  so.  The  instance  may  easily  arise  in 
actual  life.  Here,  for  example,  is  an  outlaw,  hardened  in  crime, 
desperate,  callous  to  shame,  weary  of  his  life,  whom  it  is  pro- 
posed to  curb  by  punishments.  But  none  of  them  reach  him. 
Shame  has  for  him  no  deeper  gulfs.  The  prison  is  less  a  hard- 
ship than  his  vagrant  and  starving  life.  Corporal  pains  have 
little  terror  for  one  familiar  witli  misery.  Death  is  rather  a  wel- 
come refuge  than  a  dread.       The  expediency  fails.       But  now 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY. 


495 


there  steps  forth  a  poHceman,  who  says  that  there  is  yet  one 
green  spot  in  this  seared  and  arid  heart ;  that  this  desperado 
has  an  only  child,  an  innocent  and  tender  daughter,  whose 
purity  has  shielded  her  from  all  taint.  Punish  her  with  stripes. 
Let  him  stand  and  see  her  tender  flesh  torn  with  the  scourge, 
and  hear  her  screams  ;  and  his  rugged  heart  will  relent.  He 
will  promise  anything  to  save 'his  beloved  child.  Does  not  the 
success  of  this  experiment  justify  its  righteousness  ?  Every 
right  heart  answers,  with  abhorrence,  No.  Such  a  punish- 
ment of  the  guiltless  would  be  a  monstrous  crime.  Then  we 
must  reject  that  theory  of  penalty. 

But  further  :  Expedients  are  the  resort  of  the  weak. 
Omnipotence  has  no  need  of  them  for  it  can 
OmnipStenc?  ^''^  "^^^^^^  Straight  to  its  ends.  Now,  if  love  is 
God's  whole  moral  rectitude,  as  an  infinite 
being,  He  must  be  infinitely  benevolent.  Why  then  has  He  not 
adopted  the  other  plan,  to  which  His  omnipotence  is  certainly 
competent,  of  effectually  excluding  the  mischiefs  of  sin  by  mak- 
ing and  keeping  all  His  creatures  holy?  Why  does  He  not 
convert  Satan,  instead  of  damning  him  ?  Thus  a  large  aggregate 
of  happiness  would  have  resulted  ;  all  that,  namely,  arising  out 
of  Satan's  innocency  minus  the  penal  pangs.  Moreover,  pen- 
alty has  turned  out  but  an  imperfect  and  partial  preventive, 
after  all,  for  in  spite  of  it  earth  and  hell  are  full  of  sin,  and  God 
must  have  foreseen  this  failure  of  the  repressive  policy.  Benevo- 
lence must,  then,  on  these  principles,  have  led  Him  to  adopt  a 
system  of  universal  efficacious  grace,  instead  of  a  policy  of 
penal  sanctions. 

But  especially  is  it  impossible,  on  this  theory  of  expedi- 
ency, to  account  for  everlasting  punishments 
inexpiicable!^"^^  "^'^"^^  under  an  Almighty  God.  Here  the  remedial 
theory  is  out  of  the  question  ;  for  the  culprit 
is  to  sin  and  suffer  forever.  Nor  will  the  other  plea  avail ;  that 
the  penalties  in  this  case  are  for  the  benefit  of  others.  For  this 
infliction  is  to  continue  everlasting  ages  after  all  the  penitent 
shall  have  been  perfected,  and  the  perfect  securely  enclosed 
within  the  protecting  walls  of  heaven.  There,  endowed  as  they 
are,  with  perfect  love  and  holiness,  they  need  no  threatening 
example,  to  keep  them  from  sin.  He  who  holds  this  theory  of 
punishment,  must,  if  he  is  consistent,  go  on  to  modern  Univer- 
salism,  or  else  he  must  deny  God's  omnipotence  over  free 
agents. 

Resuming  the  affirmative  argument,  I  make  my  first  appeal 

^  .  „       .       .  to  conscience.     Every   man  who  believes   in 

Amrmative   Ar  eii-         ^     j    t_    i-  tt-      •      ^-        ^^ 

ment  from  Conscience.  ^  ^OQ,  believes  His  justice  the  Same  in  ess- 
ence with  that  imprinted  on  his  own  con- 
science. For  two  reasons,  we  must  believe  this  :  That  we  are 
made  in  God's  rational  image.  And  that  Governor  and  gov- 
erned must  live  by  the  same  code  of  justice  in  order  to  under- 


496  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

stand  each  other.  Let  any  man,  then,  ask  himself  impartially, 
why  he  approves  of  a  just  punishment.  The  answer  of  his  rea- 
son will  be  simply:  because  the  sin  deserves  it.  .  Our  judgment 
of  right  and  wrong  is  intuitively  accompanied  with  the  convic- 
tion of  good  and  ill  desert.  But,  desert  of  what  ?  Reason 
answers,  of  reward  or  penalty,  of  well  being  or  suffering.  The 
title  to  the  one  is  a  counterpart  to  the  title  to  the  other.  That 
this  judgment  is  intuitive,  is  disclosed  by  the  following  instan- 
ces :  If  any  reverent  or  fair  mind  is  asked  how  the  presence  of 
so  much  suffering  in  the  world  can  consist  with  God's  benevo- 
lence, the  reason  turns  instinctively  to  the  solution  :  Because 
so  much  sin  is  here.  The  presence  of  the  sin  justifies  the  pres- 
ence of  the  suffering.  Second.  Every  sane  human  being  who 
is  in  his  sin,  dreads  to  meet  God.  Why  ?  Witness  the  moral 
fear  of  death,  and  the  certainty  with  which  the  most  reckless 
men  apprehend  their  doom  and  its  justice,  when  the  solemn 
hour  has  dissipated  vain  illusions  and  recalled  the  soul  from  the 
chase  of  vanities.  The  same  conviction  is  familiarly  but  justly 
argued  from  the  conscious  guilt  of  pagans,  and  their  desire  for 
expiatory  sacrifice.  Said  Ovid  :  Timor  fecit  Deos.  To  this 
shallow  solution  Edmund  Burke  answered:  Qtiis  fecit  timorein? 
The  belief  in  God  and  conviction  of  His  punitive  justice  must 
be  a  priori  to  the  fear  of  them.  Third.  When  any  right- 
minded  man  witnesses  the  escape  of  a  flagrant  criminal  from 
justice,  he  is  indignant.  He  says :  "The  gallows  is  cheated;" 
and  this  expression  conveys  a  certain  just  complaint  and  sense 
of  moral  grievance.  Should  the  escaped  man  charge  this  as  a 
malicious  thirsting  for  his  destruction,  the  spectator  would 
indignantly  deny  this  construction.  He  would  say  :  "  My  sen- 
timents are  not  cruelty,  but  justice."  And  he  would  declare 
that  they  were  compatible  with  sincere  pain  at  the  anguish  of  a 
justly  punished  culprit. 

We  have  seen  that  the  title  of  the  guilty  to  penalty  is  the 

correlative  to    the   title  of  the   righteous  to 

Title  to  ^P^^ty  Cor-    reward.     If  a  benevolent  policy  may  properly 

ward.  suspend  the  former,  why  not  also  the  latter? 

But  we  presume  that  if  the  consciously 
righteous  man  were  robbed  of  his  immunity,  pro  bo?to  publico, 
against  his  own  consent,  no  picture  of  the  beneficent  results 
would  reconcile  his  soul  to  the  intrinsic  injustice.  Let  the  stu- 
dent ponder,  in  this  connection,  Prov.  xvii :  15;  Rom.  ii :  9-1 1. 
2  Thess.  i :  6.  This  loose  view  of  punishment  thus  appears 
peculiarly  foolish  and  suicidal  in  those  who  hold  it,  in  that  they, 
with  their  Socinian  tendencies,  rely  more  or  less  on  their  own 
merits  for  their  acceptance.  But  if  sin  carries  the  same  merit 
of  penalty  that  righteousness  does  of  reward,  and  if  they  will 
have  God  sever  the  former  tie  at  the  dictate  of  expediency, 
they  must  be  prepared  to  find  the  latter  uncertain  also. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  497 

The  moral  law  is  the  transcript  of  God's  own  essential  per- 
fections. This  teaches  us  to  expect  that  per- 
The  Law  Immutable,  j^^^ency  in  it,  which  our  Saviour,  in  Matt,  v  : 
18,  claims  for  it.  But  is  not  the  penal  sanction  asubstantive  part 
of  the  statute  ?  The  common  sense  of  mankind  would  certainly 
answer,  yes.  What  is  the  object  of  a  penal  sanction?  To  sup- 
port the  law.  If  then  the  law  is  to  be  immutable,  the  penal 
sanction  which  supports  it  must  be  so.  There  is  a  curious  evi- 
dence of  the  judgment  of  human  legislators  on  the  question, 
whether  the  penal  sanction  is  a  substantive  part  of  the  law ; 
that  in  their  prohibitory  statutes,  it  is  the  only  part  they  usually 
publish  at  all !  Now  then  if  the  law  is  irrevocable,  the  penalty 
is  also  inevitable. 

The  whole  of  the  above  argument  may  be  put  in  a  very 
practical  light — thus  :  Is  not  judicial  impar- 
Jn^lPnfvSir''  tiahty  With  God  "a  matter  Of  principle?"  The 
upright  human  judge  v/ho  was  entreated  by 
the  convicted  man,  or  by  his  counsel,  to  act  as  the  Socinian 
expects  God  to  act  in  pardoning,  would  be  insulted !  Now, 
how  does  God  require  us  to  act,  in  matters  of  principle  ?  He 
literally  requires  us  to  die  rather  than  compromit  our  princi- 
ples. He  requires  us  to  meet  martyrdom,  rather  than  yield 
them.  Now  does  God  first  command  us  to  seek  our  complete 
rectitude  in  the  imitation  of  Himself,  and  then  act  oppositely  to 
His  injunction  to  us?  Surely  not.  In  representing  the  neces- 
sity of  satisfaction  as  so  high,  as  to  call  for  the  infinite  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ's  death  in  order  to  make  sin  pardonable,  we  con- 
form precisely  to  the  system  of  morals  which  the  Scriptures 
commend  to  us  for  ourselves.  The  tendency  of  Calvinism  is 
wholesome  herein. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  looser  doctrine  is  as  corrupting  to 

man  as  it  is  dishonouring  to  God.  Its  advo- 
Other  Docbineis  Cor-       „4.^„  £i„    +.  4-u^      u^•^   i.-         i.  i^.      • 

rupting.  cates  flout  the  obligation  to  penalty  in  every 

sin.  They  say  Calvinism  deifies  revenge. 
They  declare  substitution  and  imputation  immoral  fictions.  The 
student  may  be  forewarned  that,  when  he  hears  one  of  these 
"  advanced  thinkers  "  thus  teaching,  if  he  be  not  idly  babbling, 
he  had  best  be  shunned  as  a  man  not  to  be  trusted.  It  is  a 
confession  of  indifference  to  moral  obligation.  He  who  is  ready 
so  fliippantly  to  strip  his  God  of  His  judicial  rights,  will  probably 
not  stickle  to  plunder  his  fellow  of  his  rights.  In  this  theory  of 
guilt  and  penalty,  he  has  adopted  the  creed  of  expediency. 
Will  he  not  act  on  it,  when  tempted  by  his  own  interests? 
Worse  than  all,  he  has  fashioned  to  himself  a  God  of  expedi- 
ency. Saith  the  Psalmist,  (cxv  :  8),  "  They  that  make  them 
are  like  unto  them;  so  is  everyone  that  trusteth  in  them."  As 
man  never  comes  up  to  his  model,  a  corrupt  idol  always  sinks 
the  votary  to  a  lower  degradation  than  its  own.  Nor  could  God 
repair  this  consequence  by  any  preceptive  stringency.    Shall  He 


498  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

forbid  us  to  sacrifice  principle  to  expediency,  even  to  save  life 
itself?  Shall  He  exact  of  us  martyrdom  itself,  rather  than  we  shall 
tamper  with  right  and  truth  ;  and  all  this  under  the  penalty  of 
His  eternal  wrath  ?  Shall  He  charge  us,  also,  that  our  holiness 
is  to  consist  in  imitation  of  Him  ?  And  shall  He  then  adopt  a 
standard  of  expediency  forHimself, which  He  has  so  sternly  inhib- 
ited to  us  ?  The  only  effect  would  be  to  make  men  hypocrites, 
(e)  Moreover ;  does  not  God  bear  moral  relations  to  His 
creatures,  as  well  as  they  to  Him  ?  Gen. 
RecSjusdc".^°^''  xviii:25.  Surely.  As  Ruler,  and  especially 
as  Almighty  Ruler,  with  nothing  to  hinder 
Him  from  doing  His  will,  He  is  bound  to  His  own  perfections  to 
rule  them  aright,  as  truly  as  they  are  bound  to  Him  to  serve 
aright.  This  being  so,  retributive  justice  will  be  seen  to  flow 
as  a  necessity  from  the  holiness  and  righteousness  of  God.  By 
these  attributes  God  necessarily  and  intrinsically  approves  and 
delights  in  all  right  things.  Wrong  is  the  antithesis  of  right. 
A  moral  terthan  quid  is  an  impossibilty,  as  the  mere  absence  of 
light  is  darkness.  There  is  no  moral  neutrality.  Hence,  it 
results,  that  God  must  hate  the  wrong  by  the  very  reason  He 
approves  the  right ;  e.  g.,  if  a  man  feels  moral  complacency  at 
a  filial  affection,  will  he  not,  ipso  facto,  be  certain  to  feel  repug- 
nance at  ingratitude  ?  I  see  not  how  God  would  be  holy  at  all, 
unless  His  justice  were  necessary. 

Again  ;  were  it  not  so,  God  would  be  unjust  to  His  inno- 
cent creatures.  Sin  is  injurious  ;  to  all  but  infallible  Being  con- 
tagious, and  universally  mischievous.  God  has  been  pleased  to 
adopt  a  plan  of  moral  sanctions,  to  protect  the  universe  from 
sin.  Those  beings  who  kept  their  covenant  with  God,  have  a 
right  on  Him,  which  He,  in  infinite  condescension,  gave  them, 
to  be  protected  efficiently.  Hence,  His  righteousness  must 
lead  Him  to  inflict  penal  sanctions  with  exactness,  for  it  is  well 
known  that  uncertainty  in  this  encourages  transgressions,  con- 
founds moral  distinctions,  and  relaxes  government.  Should 
God  do  thus,  He  would  be  sacrificing  the  well-being  and  rights 
of  those  who  deserved  well  at  His  hands,  to  a  weak  compassion 
for  those  who  deserved  nothing.  God's  essential  justice  is  the 
foundation  of  the  rights  and  order  of  the  universe.  Unless  its 
actings  are  certain  and  regular,  we  are  all  at  the  mercy  of  an 
unprincipled  Omnipotence.  Even  the  damned  have  no  interest 
in  making  God's  justice  uncertain;  because  it  is  the  only  guar- 
antee that  they  shall  not  be  punished  more  than  they  deserve. 
And  the  wider  God's  dominions,  the  greater  strength  have  all 
these  arguments,  forcible  as  they  are  even  in  the  narrow  domain 
of  the  family,  school  or  state. 

The   parallel  drawn  from  acts  of  pardon  without  satisfac- 
tion, safely  and   beneficially  indulged  in   by 
tra^^sno"precedent^^"    l"'"""'an  rulers,  is  deceptive,  because  they  have 
not  the  divine    perfections  of  omnipotence, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  499 

unchangeableness  and  omniscience.  It  might  be  no  dishonour 
to  a  human  magistrate  to  modify  his  purposes ;  he  never  pro- 
fessed to  be  either  perfectly  wise  or  immutable.  Cases  may 
arise  of  conviction,  where  the  evidence  of  guilt  is  uncertain,  or 
the  criminal  intention  doubtful.  In  these  cases,  and  these  alone, 
the  pardoning  power  may  find  a  wholesome  exercise.  Such 
cases  have  no  existence  in  the  administration  of  an  omniscient 
God.  Once  more  ;  the  power  and  authority  of  human  rulers  are 
limited.  They  must  govern  as  they  can,  sometimes  not  as  they 
would.     God  can  do  all  things. 

In  a  word,  God's  moral  government,  in  its  ultimate  conclu- 
sion, must  be  as  absolute  and  perfect  as  His  own  nature.  For, 
being  supreme  and  almighty,  He  is  irresponsible  save  to  His 
own  perfections.  Therefore,  if  He  is  a  Being  of  infinite  perfec- 
tions, His  government  must  be  one  of  absolutely  righteous, 
final  results.  It  will  be  an  exact  representation  of  Himself,  for 
He  makes  it  just  what  He  pleases.  If  there  is  moral  defect 
in  the  final  adjustment,  it  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  defect 
in  God.  It  must  be  an  absolute  result,  because  the  free  act  of 
an  infinite  Being. 

(f )  The  death  of  Christ  argues  the  necessity  of  satisfaction. 
For  Socinus  admits  that  He  was  an  innocent  Man,  God's 
adopted  Son.  Surely  God  would  not  have  made  Him  suffer 
under  imputed  guilt,  (He  had  none  of  His  own),  unless  it  had 
been  morally  necessary.  In  this  view,  we  see  that  the  atone- 
ment, instead  of  obscuring,  greatly  exalts  God's  love  and  mercy  ; 
that  though  He  knew  the  price  of  pardon  must  be  the  blood  of 
His  own  Son,  His  pity  did  not  fail. 

(h)  Last ;  it  is  tacitly  implied  in  the  admissions  of  Socin- 

ians  themselves,  that  God  could  not  consist- 
Tacit  Admission   of         ,i  j  vi        i.    i-i  i.  j 
Adversaries.                  ently    pardon    Without    the    repentance    and 

reform  of  the  sinner.  For  this  gives  up  the 
point  that,  in  some  sort,  a  satisfaction  to  the  divine  honour  must 
be  exacted.  But,  repentance  and  reform  are  not  satisfactions. 
Second,  we  shall  prove  that  repentance  is  the  consequence  and 
result  of  pardon,  so  that  it  cannot  be  its  procuring  cause.  An 
injured  man,  we  admitted,  might  regard  repentance  as  obvia- 
ting the  third  element  of  transgression,  the  subjective  moral 
turpitude  But,  in  God's  case,  it  may  not,  because  God  must 
bestow  the  repentance  as  truly  as  the  pardon,  and  as  a  conse- 
quence of  the  pardon.     See  Acts  v  :  31  ;  Jer.  xxxi  :  18,  19. 

We  will  close  with  these  general  Bible  testimonies  to  the 
necessity  of  satisfaction  :  Heb.  vii  :  27  ;  viii  :  3  ;  ix  :  7,  12,  22, 
23,  28  ;  X  :  9,  10,  26,  27  to  29  ;   ii  :  10,  14,  17. 


LECTURE  XLII. 

NATURE  OF  CHRIST'S    SACRIFICE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  analogies  to  redemption  in  the  course  of  Nature  and  Providence  ?  Why 
is  not  vicarious  satisfaction  more  admitted  amongmen  ? 

Buder's  Analogy,  pt.  ii,  ch.  5.  Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  3,  §  i.  Watson's  Theo.  Inst, 
ch.  20,    g  8. 

2.  Define  the  terms,  satisfaction,  expiation,  vicarious,  atonement,  &c.,  used  of 
the  doctrine. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  10,  of  Loc.  xiv,  g  i- 16.  Hodge's  Theol.  pt.  iii,  ch.  6,  ^  3.  A. 
A.  Hodge,  on  Atonement,  pt.  i,  ch.  3      Lexicons.    Knapp,  §  no. 

3.  Give  the  direct  refutation  of  the  Socinian  theory  of  Christ's  death  ;  and  of  the 
Moral  Influence,  and  Governmental  theories. 

Turretin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  11.  Hillbk.  iv  ch.  2,  g  i,  2.  Dr.  Ch.  Hodge,  Review  of 
Beman.     Dick,  Lect  57.     A.  A.  Hodge  on  Atonement,  pt.  i  ch.  21. 

4.  Prove  Christ's  proper  substitution  and  vicarious  sacrifice,  (a)  From  the 
phraseology  of  Scripture,  (b)  From  His  personal  innocency.  (c)  From  the  import  of 
the  Gentile  sacrifices,  (d)  From  the  import  of  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  (e)  From  the 
Bible  terms  describing  Christ's  death. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  ch,  11.  Hodge's  Theol.  pt.  iii,  ch.  7.  Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  3 
2  2,  3,  5.  Dick,  Lect.  57,  58.  A.  A.  Hodge  on  Atonement,  pt.  i,  ch.  8-12. 
Ridgley,   Qu.  44,  §  4  and  5.      Watson's    Theo.    Inst.    ch.  20.     Knapp,  §  in 

5.  On  what  features  do  the  value  and  efficacy  of  Christ's  satisfaction  depend  ? 
Symington  on   Atonement,  g  2.      Turrettin,    Qu.   10,  g  6-16.      Hill,   bk.   iv, 
ch.  3,  §  I. 

'  I  ^O  the  question,  How  shall  man  be  just  with  God,  natural 
theology  gives  no  certain  answer.     It  seems,  if  we  do  not 
Redemption  Fore-    deceive  ourselves  by  attributing  to  its  light 
shadowed    in    Provi-    discoveries  really  borrowed  from  inspiration, 
^^^^^-  to  inform  us  very  clearly  that  God  is  just,  and 

man  therefore  condemned.  Having  thus  shut  us  up  under  wrath, 
its  light  deserts  us,  leaving  only  an  uncertain  twilight  ghining 
towards  the  gate  of  mercy  and  hope.  When  reason  looks  into 
the  analogies  presented  by  that  course  of  nature,  as  unbelief 
terms  it,  which  is,  in  reality,  nothing  else  than  the  course  of 
Providence,  she  sees  that  there  are  certain  evils  consequent  upon 
certain  faults — e.  g.,  sickness  on  intemperance,  want  on  idle- 
ness, bodily  death  on  reckless  imprudence  ;  but  she  also  sees 
that  there  are  certain  remedial  provisions  made  in  nature,  by 
availing  themselves  of  which  men  may  sever  the  connection 
between  the  fault  and  the  natural  penalty.  This  fact  would 
seem  to  hint  that  in  God's  eternal  government  there  may  be  a 
way  of  mercy  provided.  But  then,  the  analogical  evidence  is 
made  very  faint  by  this  fact :  that  these  natural  reliefs  for  the 
natural  evils  incurred  here  by  our  misconduct,  are  rather  post- 
ponements than  acquittals.  After  all,  inexorable  death  comes 
to  sinful  man,  in  spite  of  all  expedients. 
500 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  5OI 

But  the  most  interesting  fact  to  be  noticed  in  this  feeble 
analogy  is,  that  these  partial  releases  from 
Col^sTpSaky^''''^'^  the  natural  consequences  of  our  faults,  are 
most  often  received  through  a  mediatorial 
agency,  and  that  this  agency  is  usually  exerted  for  us  by  our 
friends  at  some  cost  to  themselves,  often  at  the  cost  of  suffering 
the  whole  or  a  part  of  the  very  evils  our  faults  naturally 
incurred.  A  man  is  guilty  of  intemperance  ;  its  natural  conse- 
quence is  sickness  and  death,  and  without  mediatorial  interven- 
tion this  consequence  would  become  certain,  for  the  foolish 
wretch  is  too  sick  to  minister  to  himself.  But  Providence  per- 
mits a  faithful  wife,  or  parent,  or  friend,  to  intervene  with  those 
remedies  and  cares  which  save  his  life.  Now,  at  what  cost  does 
this  friendly  mediator  save  it?  Obviously,  at  the  cost 
of  many  of  the  very  pains  which  the  sick  man  had  brought 
upon  himself — the  confinement,  the  watching,  the  loss  of  time, 
the  anxieties  of  the  sick  room.  Or,  a  prodigal  wastes  his  sub- 
stance, and  the  result  is  want ;  a  result,  so  far  as  his  means  are 
concerned,  inevitable.  But  his  friend  steps  in  with  his  wealth, 
pays  his  debts  and  relieves  his  necessities.  Yet  the  cost  at 
which  he  does  it  is  in  part  the  very  same  incurred  by  the  guilty 
man's  prodigality  :  decrease  of  his  substance  and  consequent 
want.  We  may  say,  yet  more  generally,  that  the  larger  part  of 
all  the  reliefs  which  Providence  administers  to  the  miseries  of 
man's  sinful  condition,  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave,  from  the 
'  maternal  love  which  shields  and  blesses  his  infancy,  down  to  the 
friendship  which  receives  his  dying  sighs,  are  administered 
through  others,  and  that  at  the  cost  of  sacrifice  or  effort  on 
their  part  for  him.  Here,  then,  we  have  a  general  analogy 
pointing  to  a  vicarious  method  of  rescuing  man  from  his  guilt, 
and  to  sacrifice  by  a  Mediator  for  him.  We  have  called  the 
evils  adverted  to  in  our  illustrations,  natural  consequences  of 
our  faults ;  but  they  are  not  therefore  any  the  less  ordained  of 
God,  and  penal ;  for  what  is  the  course  of  nature,  but  God 
ordering  ?  and  does  not  our  natural  conscience  show  that  suf- 
fering can  only  occur  under  the  almighty  providence  of  a  just 
and  good  God  as  the  penal  consequences  of  ill-desert  ? 

The  revealed  idea  of  a  satisfaction  for  sin,  or  vicarious  ar- 
rangement to  deliver  man  from  guilt,  has  been  made  the  butt  of 
rationalistic  objections.  The  value  of  this  analogy  is  to  silence 
these  objections,  by  showing  that  the  idea,  however  mysterious, 
is  not  unnatural. 

It  has  been  objected  by  rationalists,  that  vicarious   punish- 
SubstitutionUnusual    "^^nts  are  not  admitted  in  the  penal  legislation 
in  Civil  Law,  for  Reas-    of  just  and  civilized  men  ;  and  if  introduced, 
^^^-  would  strike  our  moral  judgments  as  v/rong 

and  unreasonable.  It  may  be  remarked,  that  among  the  an- 
cients these  arrangements  frequently  appeared,  in  the  cases  of 
hostages,  and  avzc&j^^o:.     In  modern  legislation  they  appear  at 


502  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

least  in  the  case  of  suretyships  for  debt.  But  there  are  four 
very  good  reasons  which  distinguish  between  human  govern- 
ments and  God's. 

1st.    It  is  in  my  view,  unreasonable   and   mischievous,  to 
reply  to  objections  against  the  morality  of  a 

Because   God   is  a    substitution  (Christ's  or  Adam's)  by  such  a 
Sovereign  Legislator.  X      ,,  .  i        ,  , 

reference  to  Cjod  s  sovereignty,  as  should  rep- 
resent it  as  irresponsible,  not  only  to  man's  imperfect  concep- 
tions of  rectitude,  but  to  the  intrinsic  principles  thereof.  What 
is  this  but  saying  that  because  God  is  omnipotent  Owner,  there- 
fore He  may  properly  be  unjust.     Does  might  make  right  ? 

But  it  is  a  very  different  (and  proper)  thing  to  say  that,  while 
God  as  Sovereign,  regulates  His  every  act  by  the  same  general 
principles  of  rectitude,  which  He  enjoins  on  His  creatures,  yet  He 
very  justly  exercises  a  width  of  discretion,  for  Himself,  in  His 
application  of  those  principles,  which  He  does  not  allow  to  hu- 
man magistrates,  in  delegating  them  a  little  portion  of  His 
power.  Deut.  xxiv  :  i6.  This  is  made  proper  by  His  sover- 
eignty. (I  may  righteously  do  with  my  horse,  what  would  be 
cruel  in  him  to  whom  I  had  hired  him,  for  a  day's  ordinary 
journey — e.  g.,  ride  him  to  extremity,  or  even  to  death,  to  res- 
cue the  life  of  my  child.)  And  by  God's  infinite  knowledge  and 
wisdom,  judging  the  whole  results  of  a  substitution  as  a  creature 
cannot.  Hence,  the  impropriety  of  vicarious'  arrangements 
among  men  may  be  compatible  with  their  admission  between 
God  and  man  ;  and  yet  no  contrariety  of  moral  principles  in  the 
two  governments  is  involved  ;  e.  g.  I  delegate  to  a  teacher,  at  a 
distance,  a  portion  of  my  parental  power  over  my  child.  I  tell 
him  he  is  to  consider  himself,  as  to  this  extent,  in  loco  parentis, 
and  govern  my  boy  on  strictly  parental  principles  ;  yet  he  would 
be  very  unreasonable  if  he  assumed  power  to  exercise  every  kind 
of  discretion  as  to  him,  which  I  might  properly  exercise. 

2d.  When  men  inflict  penalties  less  than  capital,  one  object 

of  the  infliction  is  the  reform  of  the  offender; 
ishbg  VirJdkatoiy!'"""    ^°^  which  a  personal  endurance  of  the  pain  is 

necessary.  But  when  God  inflicts  the  eternal 
penalty  of  sin.  He  has  no  intention  of  reforming  the  sufferer 
thereby, 

3d.  In  those  cases  where  human  tribunals  punish  by  the 

loss  of  life  or  liberty,  the  vicarious  arrange- 
Me^^l?>S!''^'"°"^  "^ent  cannot  be  adopted,  because  no  one  can 

be  found  who  is  owner  of  his  own  life  and 
well-being.  But  he  cannot  pay  away,  in  ransom  of  another, 
what  he  has  no  right  to  part  with. 

4th.    We   found  that  one  of  the   elements  of  offence  con- 

.  tracted  by  wrong-doing  was  the  moral  turpi- 

not  Sanctiff!'^''^^*'^  *^^"'    tude  ;  that  and  the  removal  of  this  by  genuine 

repentance  is  one  of  the  necessary  conditions 
for  pardoning  the  wrong-doer.     Now,  a  vicarious  satisfaction  is 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  5O3 

inapplicable  in  human  governments,  because  the  human  magis- 
trate would  have  no  means  to  work  genuine  repentance  in  the 
criminal,  though  an  atonement  were  offered.  But  without  such 
repentance,  guilt  could  not  be  properly  pardoned,  by  God  or 
man,  however  adequate  the  satisfaction  to  justice.  Now,  God 
can  work  and  insure  genuine  repentance  in  His  pardoned  crimi- 
nals, through  the  Holy  Ghost.  See  Acts  v  :  31.  Hence,  He 
can  properly  avail  Himself  of  the  principle  of  vicarious  penalty. 
Even  supposing  a  man  could  be  found  who  had  autocracy  of 
his  own  life,  time,  and  social  relations,  and  who  was  willing  to 
die  for  a  murderer,  when  slain,  he  could  not  rise  again  ;  he 
would  be  a  final  loss  to  society,  and  society  would  gain,  in  ex- 
change, the  life  of  the  murderer,  now  penitent  and  reformed, 
(supposing  the  magistrate,  like  God,  had  regenerating  power 
over  him).  So,  all  the  result  would  be,  that  society  would  lose 
a  citizen  who  always  had  been  good,  and  gain  one  who  was 
about  to  become  good.  The  magistrate  would  not  feel  himself 
justified  in  admitting  the  substitution,  for  such  results,  however 
it  might  be  generous  in  the  friend  to  propose  it. 

Word  atonement  is  used  often  in  the  Old  Testament,  once 

in  the  New,  Rom.   v:  11.      The  Hebrew  is 

e  nitions.  usually  "^^^    literally,    "  covering,"    because 

that  which  atones  is  conceived  as  covering  guilt  from  the  eye  of 
justice.  The  Greek  is  /.axaXmyrj — reconciliation,  as  it  and  its 
cognates  are  elsewhere  translated.  It  is  plausibly  supposed 
that  "atonement"  is  " at-one-ment," — i.  e.,  reconciliation. 
These  words,  then,  are  generic,  and  not  specific  of  the  particu- 
lar means  of  reconciliation,  according  to  etymology.  The  word 
which  I  should  prefer  to  use,  is  one  sanctioned  by  the  constant 
usage  of  the  Reformed  theologians,  "  satisfaction."  This  ex- 
presses truly  and  specifically  what  Christ  did  for  believers.  It 
points  explicitly  to  the  divine  law  and  perfections,  whose  demand 
for  satisfaction  constitute  the  great  obstacles  to  pardon.  It  in- 
includes,  also,  Christ's  preceptive,  as  well  as  His  penal,  compen- 
sation for  our  debt.  We  shall  see  that  both  Christ's  obedience 
to  the  preceptive  law  and  His  voluntary  endurance  of  the  penal 
sanction  enter  into  His  satisfaction,  paid  as  our  substitute.  The 
established  word,  which  has  been  deliberately  attested  and  ap- 
proved by  the  Church,  is  by  all  means  to  be  retained.  Atone- 
ment, or  reconciliation  is  related  to  satisfaction,  as  effect  to 
cause. 

The  Reformed  divines  are  also  accustomed  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  penal  and  moral  satisfaction, 
J^atisfactionnotCom-  ^^  ^j^^  ^^^^  j^^^^j^  ^^^  pecuniary  payment,  on 

the  other.  In  a  mere  pecuniary  debt,  the 
claim  is  on  the  money  owed,  not  on  the  person  owing.  The 
amount  is  numerically  estimated.  Hence,  the  surety,  in  making 
vicarious  payment,  must  pay  the  exact  number  of  coins  due. 


504  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

And  when  he  has  done  that,  he  has,  ipso  facto,  satisfied  the  debt. 
His  offer  of  such  payment  in  full  is  a  legal  tender  which  leav^es 
the  creditor  no  discretion  of  assent  or  refusal.  If  he  refuses, 
his  claim  is  cancelled  for  once  and  all.  But  the  legal  claim  on 
us  for  obedience  and  penalty  is  personal.  It  regards  not  only 
the  quid  solvatur,  but  the  quis  solvat.  The  satisfaction  of  Christ 
is  not  idem  facere ;  to  do  the  identical  thing  required  of  the 
sinner,  but  satis  facere  ;  to  do  enough  to  be  a  just  moral  equiv- 
alent for  what  is  due  from  the  sinner.  Hence,  two  consequences  : 
Christ's  satisfaction  cannot  be  forced  on  the  divine  Creditor  as 
a  legal  tender ;  it  does  not  free  us  ipso  facto.  And  God,  the 
Creditor,  has  an  optional  discretion  to  decline  the  proffer,  if  He 
chooses  (before  He  is  bound  by  His  own  covenant),  or  to  accept 
it.  Hence,  the  extent  to  which,  and  the  terms  on  which,  Christ's 
vicarious  actions  shall  actually  satisfy  the  law,  depend  simply 
on  the  stipulations  made  between  Father  and  Son,  in  the  cove- 
nant of  redemption. 

Yet,  we  shall  by  no  means  agree,  with  the  Scotists,  and  the 

early  Remonstrants,  that  Christ  did  not  make 
Yet  not  per  accepti-    ^  ^.^^i    ^^^  equivalent  satisfaction  for  sinners' 
lationem.  1    1  -r^i  1         tt-  -r 

debts.      Ihey  say,  that  His  sacnhce  was  not 

such,  because  He  did  not  suffer  really  what  sinners  owed.  He 
did  not  feel  remorse,  nor  absolute  despair ;  He  did  not  suffer 
eternally  ;  only  His  humanity  suffered.  But  they  suppose  that 
the  inadequate  sufferings  were  taken  as  a  ransom-price,  per  ac- 
ccptilationem :  by  a  gracious  waiver  of  God's  real  claims  of 
right.  And  they  hold  that  any  sacrifice,  which  God  may  please 
thus  to  receive,  would  be  thereby  made  adequate.  The  differ- 
ence between  their  view  and  the  Reformed  may  be  roughly,  but 
fairly  defined,  by  an  illustration  drawn  from  pecuniary  obliga- 
tions:  A  mechanic  is  justly  indebted  to  a  land-owner  in  the 
sum  of  one  hundred  pounds ;  and  has  no  money  wherewith  to 
pay.  Now,  should  a  rich  brother  offer  the  landlord  the  full 
hundred  pounds,  in  coin  of  the  realm,  this  would  be  a  legal  ten- 
der; it  would,  ipso  facto,  cancel  the  debt,  even  though  the  cred- 
itor captiously  rejected  it.  Christ's  satisfaction  is  not  ipso 
facto  in  this  commercial  sense.  There  is  a  second  supposition : 
that  the  kind  brother  is  not  rich,  but  is  himself  an  able  mechanic  ; 
and  seeing  that  the  landlord  is  engaged  in  building,  he  proposes 
that  he  will  work  as  a  builder  for  him  two  hundred  days,  at  ten 
shillings  per  diem  (which  is  a  fair  price),  to  cancel  his  poor 
brother's  debt.  This  proposal,  on  the  one  hand,  is  not  a  "  legal 
tender,"  and  does  not  compel  the  creditor.  He  may  say  that 
he  has  already  enough  mechanics,  who  are  paid  in  advance ;  so 
that  he  cannot  take  the  proposal.  But,  if  he  judges  it  conven- 
ient to  accept  it,  although  he  does  not  get  the  coin,  he  gets  an 
actual  equivalent  for  his  claim,  and  a  fair  one.  This  is  satisfac- 
tio.  The  debtor  may  thus  get  a  valid  release  on  the  terms  freely 
covenanted  between  the  surety  and  creditor.     But  there  is  a 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  505 

third  plan  :  The  kmd  brother  has  some  "  script "  of  the  capi- 
tal stock  of  some  company,  which,  "  by  its  face  "  amounts  nom- 
inally, to  one  hundred  pounds,  but  all  know  that  it  is  worth 
but  little.  Yet  he  goes  to  the  creditor,  saving :  "  My  brother 
and  I  have  a  pride  about  bearing  the  name  of  full  payment  of 
our  debt.  We  propose  that  you  take  this  '  script '  as  one  hun- 
dred pounds  (which  is  its  nominal  amount),  and  give  us  a  dis- 
charge, which  shall  state  that  you  have  payment  in  full."  Now, 
if  the  creditor  assents,  this  is  payment  per  acceptilationevt. 
Does  Christ's  satisfaction  amount  to  no  more  than  this  ?  We 
answer  emphatically,  it  does  amount  to  more.  This  dispar- 
aging conception  is  refuted  by  many  scriptures,  such  as  Isa. 
xlii  :  21  ;  liii  :  6.  It  is  dishonourable  to  God,  representing  Him 
as  conniving  at  a  "legal  fiction,"  and  surrendering  all  standard 
of  truth  and  justice  to  confusion.  On  this  low  scheme,  it  is  im- 
possible to  see  how  any  real  necessity  for  satisfaction  could  exist. 
The  Reformed  assert  then,  that  Christ  made  penal  satis- 
faction, by  suffering  the  very  penalty  de- 
Christ  Suffered  the  j  j  u  ^.u  1  f  •  t  i.i  • 
vei7  Penalty.                 manded  by  the  law  ot  smners.     In  this  sense, 

we  say  even  idem  fecit.  The  identity  we 
assert  is,  of  course,  not  a  numerical  one,  but  a  generic  one. 
If  we  are  asked,  how  this  could  be,  when  Christ  was  not  holden 
forever  of  death,  and  experienced  none  of  the  remorse,  wicked 
despair,  and  subjective  pollution,  attending  a  lost  sinner's  second 
death?  We  reply:  the  same  penalty,  when  poured  out  on 
Him,  could  not  work  all  the  detailed  results,  because  of  His 
divine  nature  and  immutable  holiness.  A  stick  of  wood,  and 
an  ingot  of  gold  are  subjected  to  the  same  fire.  The  wood  is 
permanently  consumed  :  the  gold  is  only  melted,  because  it  is  a 
precious  metal,  incapable  of  natural  oxidation,  and  it  is  gath- 
ered, undiminished,  from  the  ashes  of  the  furnace.  But  the 
fire  was  the  same  !  And  then,  the  infinite  dignity  of  Christ's 
person  gives  to  His  temporal  sufferings  a  moral  value  equal  to 
the  weight  of  all  the  guilt  of  the  world. 

Christ,   or   His   w^ork,  is  also   called  I'jzpov,  ransom-price ; 

and  the  transaction    an    d-o}Jjz(>ioatz    or    re- 
erms.  deeming.     The  obvious  idea  here,  is  that  of 

purchase,  by  a  price,  or  equivalent,  out  of  bondage.  He  is 
also  our  [laafibz,  or  i^OAafioz,  making  for  us  propitiation, 
lAaazrjpcov.  Expiation  is  the  sacrificial  and  satisfactory  action, 
making  the  offended  Judge  propitious  to  the  transgressor. 
These  terms  applied  to  Christ's  suffering  work,  justify  us  in 
describing  His  sacrifice,  as  His  vicarious  suffering  of  the  penal- 
ties due  our  sins,  to  satisfy  God's  justice  and  thus  reconcile 
Him  to  us. 

Before  proceeding  to    refute  the    Socinian  theory  of  the 

atonement,  let  us  briefly  re-state  it.  The 
^^S^^Soaman  Theory    ^^ffej-ings   of  Jesus,  they    suppose,  were  not 

penal ;  but  only  natural,  such  as  w^ould  have 


506  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

been  incurred  by  Adam  in  Paradise,  had  he  not  fallen.  Yet 
God  permitted  and  ordained  them,  1st.  As  an  example  to 
teach  us  patience,  fortitude,  and  submission.  2d.  As  an  attes- 
tation of  the  honesty  and  truth  of  His  teachings  concerning  the 
way  of  life  through  imitation  of  Him.  3d.  To  make  Him  a 
compassionate  Teacher,  Friend,  and  Patron  to  His  brethren.  4th. 
To  make  way  for  His  resurrection  ;  which  was  the  all-important 
evidence  and  warrant  to  us  that  eternal  life  may  be  hoped  for, 
through  repentance  and  reform.  Thus,  He  died,  suffered  for 
us  —  i.  e.,  pro  bono  nostrum  —  in  a  general  sense.  Thus,  He  is 
the  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of  men  —  i.  e.,  the  Agent  of  their' 
salvation  in  a  sense.  But  He  made  no  penal  satisfaction  for  sin. 
Now,  an  overwhelming  indirect  refutation  of  this  theory 
has  already  been  given,  in  our  argument  for  the  necessity  of  a 
proper  vicarious  penalty.  Another  will  be  presented  under  the 
succeeding  head,  when  we  prove  that  Christ's  sufferings  were 
vicarious.     But  for  direct  refutation,  note  : 

There  can  be  little  reasonable   encouragement  in  the  ex- 
Theory  Inconsistent,    ^mple  of  one  who  suffered  ^so   bitterly  with- 
ist.  Because  a  Guiltless    out  deserving  anything.       Such  a  spectacle. 
Sufferer   Suggests    an    instead  of  shedding  light,  hopC  and  patience 
Unjust  God.  ,,  r     .     1-  \A  1 

■^  on     the     sorrows    01    believers,     could    only 

deepen  the  darkness  and  anguish ;  for  it  could  only  suggest 
difficulties  concerning  the  justice  and  benevolence  of  God,  and 
raise  the  torturing  doubt,  "  Can  any  one  be  secure  of  blessed- 
ness, any  angel  or  saint  in  heaven,  or  is  there  any  justice  and 
benevolence  in  God,  in  which  I  may  hope  for  release  from  pres- 
ent sufferings ;  seeing  a  creature  so  holy  as  Jesus  suffered  thus  ? 
He  was  enabled  to  triumph  over  them  at  last  ?  Yea,  but  why 
did  God  make  Him  suffer  at  all,  when  He  was  entirely  innocent  ?  I, 
who  am  not  innocent,  may  not  be  thus  released  after  suffering !  " 
To  represent   His   death     as    of    such  importance  as    the 

2nd.  Martytdom  only  attestation  of  the  truthfulness  of  His  teach- 
Demonstrates  Martyr's  ings,  contradicts  good  sense  and  Scripture. 
Sincenty.  ^jj  ^^^  ^^  death  of  a  martyr  can  prove  is, 

that  he  sincerely  believes  the  creed  for  which  he  dies.  False 
creeds  have  had  their  martyrs.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  refer 
to  Christ's  death  as  the  evidence  of  His  truth ;  but  uniformly 
to  His  works.  See  John  xiv  :  11  ;  v  :  36  ;  x  :  25-38;  xv  : 
24,  &c. 

The    Socinian    scheme     gives    the    chief   importance    to 

3rd.  Christ's  Death  Christ's  resurrection,  rather  than  His  death, 
Purchases  Salvation,  as  the  means  whereby  "  life  and  immortality 
not  His  Resurrection.  ^^^^^  brought  to  light."  His  death  was  then 
rather  the  necessary  preliminary  step,  to  make  His  resurrection 
possible  ;  that  the  latter  might  be,  to  our  faith,  the  splendid  and 
crowning  evidence  of  a  future  life  for  us.  Did  God,  then,  kill 
Jesus,  to  have  the  opportunity  of  raising  Him  ?  Since  a  resur- 
rection is  but  the  repairing  of  a  death,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  50/ 

whole  transaction  inspires  at  least  as  much  terror  as  hope.  He 
ordained  the  death  of  Him  who  deserved  to  live  ;  so  there  is  an 
instance  of  severity,  if  not  injustice,  fully  counterpoising  the 
instance  of  goodness  in  raising  Him.  Again  ;  the  Scriptures 
do  not  agree  to  the  Socinian  view ;  for  they  everywhere  repre- 
sent the  benefit  we  derive  from  Christ  as  chiefly  flowing  from 
Christ's  death.  Heb.  ii :  14.  His  resurrection  was  indeed  a 
glorious  attestation ;  but  it  was  an  attestation  of  the  sufficiency 
of  that  death,  as  a  satisfaction  to  law,  and  an  adequate  pur- 
chase of  our  relief. 

Again  ;  the  whole  plausibility  of  the  Socinian's  account  of 

Christ's  death  and  resurrection   is  ruined  by 

epie-exisen.  ^j^^  ^^^^  ^^  p^-^   pre-existence.      For  a  mere 

man  to  rise  again  after  dying,  like  Lazarus,  is  an  encouraging 
instance ;  but  the  rising  again  of  a  Being  who  possessed  a  pre- 
vious and  glorious  life  besides  that  of  His  humanity,  presents 
on  the  Socinian  view  no  analogy  to  encourage  mortal  man  to 
hope  for  a  resurrection.  The  answer  is  too  obvious  :  that  the 
strange  anomaly  of  a  resurrection  in  Jesus'  case  was  most  prob- 
ably the  result  of  His  glorious,  pre-existent  nature.  Man  has 
no  such  nature,  and  therefore  should  not  expect,  from  such  an 
instance,  to  imitate  Him.  As  well  might  a  log  of  wood  infer 
that,  because  a  living  creature  is  seen  to  rise  erect  when  laid  on 
its  back,  therefore  logs  of  wood  may  hope  to  rise,  when  laid  on 
their  backs.  4th.  The  Socinian  scheme  utterly  fails  to  account 
for  Christ's  royal  exaltation.  We  do  not  allude  now  to  the 
fact  that  those  regal  functions  (Matt,  xxviii  :  18;  xxv:3i,  32; 
Eph.  i :  22)  could  only  be  fulfilled  by  proper  divinity.  On  the 
Socinian  scheme,  He  ought  not  to  have  any  regal  functions. 
He  has  not  earned  them.  He  does  not  need  them.  Sinners 
regenerate  themselves ;  and  their  own  repentance  and  reform 
are  their  righteousness ;  so  that  the  tasks  of  the  royal  priest, 
interceding  and  ruling  on  His  throne,  are  useless  and  groundless. 

Last;  on  the  Socinian  theory,  Christ  could  not  have 
5th.  Christ,  on  this  ^^^"  ^"  ^^^X  sense  the  Mediator  or  Redeemer 
Scheme,  did  not  Re-  of  Old  Testament  saints.  Their  sins  could 
deem  Old  Testament  not  have  been  remitted  on  the  ground  of 
Christ's  prospective  satisfaction  for  sin ;  for, 
according  to  Socinians,  there  was  none  in  prospect.  Those 
saints  could  not  have  profited  by  Christ's  example,  teachings, 
and  resurrection;  because  they  were  in  heaven  long  before 
Christ  existed.  But  see  Heb.  ix:i5;  Rom.  iii :  25  ;  Jno.  viii: 
56,  &c. 

Against  the  scheme  of  Dr.  Price,  called  by  Hill  the  Mid- 

The  Middle  Scheme.     ^^^'^'^^{   ^f  ^    ^11,    p.  422,)    these    objections 

obviously  he :  that  it  represents  Christ  as 
acquiring  His  title  to  forgive  sin  only  by  His  death.  But  Matt. 
ix  :  6,  says  that  the  Son  of  Man  had  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins  before.     It  speaks  splendidly  of  Christ's  suffering  in  order 


508  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

to    acquire   this    title  to   pardon ;  but    it   gives    no   intelligible 

account  of  how  these   sufferings  acquired  that  title.     It   is,   in 

this,  as  vague  as  Socinianism. 

The  scheme  of  atonement  with  which  we  have  now  most 

concern,  as  defenders  of  truth,  is  that  usually 
Governmental  Influ-     i  j.i         „  i.    i         u 

ence  Scheme  known    as    the    governmental   scheme — i.  e. 

that  whicn  resolves  the  sufferings  and  death 
of  Christ  into  a  mere  moral  expedient  of  God,  to  connect  such 
a  display  of  His  justice  and  hatred  of  sin,  with  His  acts  of  par- 
don, as  will  prevent  bad  effects  from  the  failure  to  punish 
strictly  according  to  law.  This  view  proceeds  from  that  theory 
of  ethics  which  resolves  all  virtue  into  benevolence,  teaching 
that  an  act  is  right  or  virtuous  only  because  it  tends  on  the 
whole  most  to  promote  the  welfare  of  Beings  ;  (and  the  con- 
trary). (We  cannot  pause  here  to  debate  this  theory,  but  only 
note  how  intimately  ethics  and  metaphysics  affect  Theology). 
Hence,  these  divines  hold,  God  has  no  intrinsic,  essential  jus- 
tice, other  than  His  benevolence — i.  e.,  that  the  whole  amount 
of  His  motive  for  punishing  sin  is,  to  preserve  His  moral  empire 
from  the  mischiefs  which  sin  unchecked  would  produce. 
Hence,  the  only  necessity  for  an  atonement  which  they  recog- 
nize, is  the  necessity  of  repairing  that  defence  against  disorder 
in  God's  government,  which  the  dispensing  with  the  penalty 
would  break  down.  They,  consequently,  deny  that  Christ  was 
properly  substituted  under  the  believer's  guilt,  that  He  bore 
any  imputation,  that  He  made  a  real  satisfaction  to  God's  jus- 
tice, and  that  the  justifying  virtue  of  His  righteousness  is  im- 
puted to  men.  The  author  of  this  system  in  New  England 
seems  to  have  been  the  younger  Pres.  Edwards,  son  of  Jona- 
than, and  its  great  propagator,  Dr.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven. 
This  is  the  system  known  as  the  New  School,  in  the  North,  and 
advocated  by  Barnes  and  Beman  on  the  atonement.  It  is  a 
striking  matter  of  history,  that  nearly  all  the  arguments  by 
which  Edwards,  Jr.,  sought  to  remove  the  old  Calvinistic  the- 
ory, to  substitute  his,  were  unconsciously  Socinian. 

If  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  is  proved  from  God's  essen- 
tial justice,  as  we  have  attempted,  this  view 
^  "  ^  '°"'  of  the  atonement  is  proved  false.     Again  :  if 

we  .shall  succeed  in  proving  that  Christ's  was  a  proper,  vicarious 
sacrifice,  this,  also,  overthrows  it.  Third :  we  have  seen  that 
this  New  England  plan  rests  on  this  proposition  ;  that  a  govern- 
mental policy  of  repressing  sin,  is  the  only  ground  of  God's 
justice  ;  resolving  all  right  into  mere  utility.  The  abominable 
consequences  of  this  ethical  principle  have  been  shown  ;  they 
are  such  that  the  principle  cannot  be  true.  We  might  add  that 
man's  intuitive  moral  judgments  pronounce  that  sin  is  wrong, 
not  merely  because  it  tends  to  injure  well-being,  but  wrong  in 
itself;  and  that  the  very  wording  of  such  a  statement,  implies 
a  standard  of  wrong  and  right  other  than  that  of  mere  utility. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  5O9' 

This    ethical    principle    being    untrue,    the    plan    falls    with    it. 
But  further,  for  direct  refutations :  This  plan  of  atonement 

leaves  us  practically  on  Socinian  ground,  as  to 
eousntrimpreS'"''"    ^^^f'  Justifying  righteousness.    If  imputation 

IS  denied,  and  it  Christ  wrought  out  no  proper 
satisfaction  to  justice  for  the  believer's  sin,  to  be  set  over  to  the 
believer's  account  for  his  justification,  there  is  no  alternative  left ; 
the  advocates  of  this  plan  are  shut  up  to  the  Arminian  definition 
of  justification,  as  an  imputing  of  the  believer's  own  faith  (along 
with  the  repentance  and  holy  living  flowing  therefrom)  as  the 
ground  of  the  sinner's  repentance ;  as  his  righteousness.  Ac- 
cordingly Messrs.  Barnes,  &c.,  do  explicitly  accept  this.  But 
we  shall  show,  in  the  proper  place,  that  such  a  justification  is 
unscriptural.  Justification  is  no  longer  properly  through  Christ, 
saving  faith  would  no  longer  be  such  a  coming  to  Christ 
directly,  as  the  Scriptures  describe  it ;  and  the  whole  tenour  of 
Bible  language  concerning  His  divine  righteousness,  concerning 
His  being  the  immediate  object  of  faith,  &c.,  &c.,  would  be 
violated. 

Last :  the    overwhelming   objection   to    this  plan    is>    that 

.  according  to   its   definition,  the   sufferings  of 

Showino-!  ^^  °^  ^  ^  °^"    Christ   would   be   no    governmental   display 

whatever  of  the  evils  of  sin,  or  of  God's 
determination  to  punish.  These  divines  avow  that  Christ  is  a 
Person  possessed  of  a  pre-existent,  divine,  holy  and  supreme 
nature,  not  only  guiltless,  but  above  law  ;  and  of  a  pure  and 
sinless  humanity,  the  voluntary  assumption  of  which  only 
placed  Him,  by  His  own  consent,  under  law,  for  a  particular 
atoning  purpose.  His  mediatorial  person  stood  forth  as  the 
exemplar  of  sinless  purity  and  perfection,  to  all  creatures,  in 
both  its  natures  ;  and  in  every  relation  ;  attested  by  holy  writ, 
by  the  voice  of  God  speaking  His  divine  approval  from  heaven 
in  tones  of  thunder,  by  the  reluctant  tribute  of  His  enemies,  by 
the  haughty  Pagan  who  condemned  Him,  by  the  very  traitor 
who  betrayed  Him,  as  he  appears  scathed  with  the  fires  of  his 
own  remorse,  before  his  plunge  into  hell,  and  confesses  that  he 
had  "  betrayed  the  innocent  blood."  All  heaven  and  all  earth 
testified  to  the  Son  of  Man,  that  He  was  "  holy,  harmless,  un- 
defiled,  and  separate  from  sinners ;"  testified  to  the  universe. 
And  yet,  the  universe  is  invited  to  come  and  behold  this  Being, 
the  only  innocent  Man  who  had  appeared  since  Adam,  deliv- 
ered to  torments  more  cruel  than  any  of  Adam's  guilty  sons 
had  ever  endured,  "  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel"  of 
His  Father,  while  without  guilt,  either  personal  or  imputed  ! 
Is  this  a  glorious  display  of  justice  ?  Does  this  illustrate  the 
evil  of  sin,  and  the  inexorable  connection  which  God's  benevo- 
lence requires  Him  to  maintain  between  sin  and  punishment  ? 
Does  it  not  rather  confound  all  moral  distinctions,  and  illustrate 
the  evils  of  holiness,  the  cruelty  and  injustice  of  the  Hand  that 


510  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

rules  the  world  ?  There  is  no  explanation  of  Christ's  suffering 
innocence,  which  does  not  involve  an  insuperable  contradiction, 
except  the  orthodox ;  and  that,  we  admit,  involves  a  great 
mystery. 

Each  of  the    false    schemes    attempts   to  express  what  is 
true.     But  ours  really  includes  all  that  theirs 

clu?efAlrhe!;S:rr  <^lfi"?'  ^l^il^  it  embraces  the  vital  element 
which  they  omit,  vicarious  penal  satisfaction. 
And  note  :  It  is  only  by  predicating  the  latter,  that  the  moral 
influences  claimed  by  the  inadequate  schemes  really  have  place. 
Says  the  Socinian,  Christ's  suffering  work  is  not  vicarious,  but 
only  exemplary,  instructive,  and  confirmatory.  Says  the  mod- 
ern "  Liberal  Christian  ;"  it  was  intended  only  for  that,  and  to 
present  a  spectacle  of  infinite  tenderness  and  mercy,  to  melt 
the  hearts  of  transgressors.  Says  the  New  Haven  doctor:  It 
was  intended  for  those  ends,  and  also  to  make  a  dramatic  dis- 
play of  God's  opposition  to  sin,  and  of  its  evils.  But  we  reply: 
If  it  was  not  a  vicarious  satisfaction  for  imputed  guilt,  then  it 
was  not  consistently  either  of  the  others.  But  if  it  is  vicarious 
satisfaction  for  guilt,  then  it  also  subserves,  and  admirably  sub- 
serves, all  these  minor  ends. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  centre  of  the 
true  TheoiT. '^'^^^  ^  °     Subject  to    establish  what   has  been  several 
times  anticipated — Christ's  proper  vicarious 
suffering  for  imputed  guilt. 

1st.  From  various  sets  of  Bible  phrases,  exceedingly  nume- 
rous and  varied,  of  which  we  only  present  specimens.     Thus : 

He  is  said  to  have  suffered  and  died  "  for  us,"  "  for  the 
„,.,.,  ^         „      ungodly."      Rom.  v  :   6,  8  ;    and  "  for  our 

Christ  died  for  us,  &c.      ■       n       ^    rt   t.     ••        -.o  <:  ~  c 

Sins.        I    ret.   iii  :    i8.     tzsoc  auao-uou.     bo- 

cinians  say:  "  True,  He  died  in  a  general  sense  for  us,  inasmuch 

as  His  death  is  a  part  of  the  agency  for  our  rescue:  He  did  die 

to  do  us  good,  not  for   Himself  only."     The  answer  is.  that  in 

nearly  every  case,  the  context  proves  it  a  vicarious  dying,  for  our 

guilt.     Rom.  V  :  "  We  are  justified  by  His  blood."    i  Pet.iii  :  i8. 

*'  The  just  for  the  unjust."    (urrko  dd'r/.cov.)    Then,  also,  He  is  said 

to  be  a  I'jziioi^  di^zi  -o'/jxov.  Matt,  xx :  28.  This  proposition  properly 

signifies  substitution.     See   Matt,  ii  :  22  for  instance. 

Again  :  He  is  said  to  bear  our  sins,  and  equivalent  expres- 
sions. I  Pet.  ii  :  24  ;  Heb.  ix  :  28  ;  Is.  liii  : 
^Christ  bore  our  sins,  ^^  And  these  words  are  abundantly  defined 
in  our  sense  by  Old  Testament  usage,  (cf.) 
Num.  ix  :  13.  An  evasion  is  again  attempted,  by  pointing  to 
Matt,  viii  :  17,  and  saying  that  there,  this  bearing  of  man's  sor- 
rows was  not  an  enduring  of  them  in  His  person,  but  a  bearing 
of  them  away,  a  removal  of  them.  We  reply,  the  Evangelist 
refers  to  Is.  liii  :  4,  not  to  liii  :  6.  And  Peter  says  :  "He  bore 
our  sins  in  His  body  on  the  tree."     The  language  is  unique. 

Another  unmistakable  class  of  texts,  is  those  in  which  He 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGV. 


511 


is  said  to  be  made  sin  for  us  ;  while  we  are 

ChnstmadeSmforus.  ^^^^  righteousness  in  Him.     See  I  Cor.  i  : 

30  ;  2  Cor.  V  :  21.     A  still  more  indisputable  place  is  where  He 

is  said  to  be  made  a  curse  for  us.     Gal.  iii  :  13.     The  orthodox 

meaning,  considering  the  context,  is  unavoidable. 

Again  :  He  is  said  in  many  places   to  be  our  Redeemer — 
^,  .  ^  i.  e.,  Ransomer — and  His  death,  or  He,  is  our 

Christ  our  Ransom.       r,  tit    i.i.  o  -n    .     •  r^- 

Ransom,  Matt,  xx  :  28  ;  i  Pet.  1:19;  i  Tim. 
ii  :  6  ;  i  Cor.  vi  :  20.  It  is  vain  to  reply  that  God  is  said  to 
redeem  His  people  in  many  places,  when  the  only  meaning  is, 
that  He  delivered  them ;  and  that  Moses  is  called  the  redeemer 
of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  who  certainly  did  not  do  this  by  a  vica- 
rious penalty :  Christ's  death  is  a  proper  ransom,  because  the 
very  price  is  mentioned. 

Christ's  work  is  shown  to  be  properly  vicarious,  from  His 
2nd.  Christ  Bore  Impu-    personal    innocence.       This    argument    has 
ted  Guilt  because  Per-    been  anticipated.     We  shall,  therefore,  only 
sonally  Innocent.  ^arry  to  clear  it  from  the  Pelagian  evasion, 

and  to  carry  it  further.  Pelagians,  seeing  that  Christ,  an  inno- 
cent being,  must  have  suffered  vicarious  punishment,  if  He  suf- 
fered any  punishment,  deny  that  the  providential  evils  of  life 
are  penal  at  all;  and  assert  that  they  are  only  natural,  so 
that  Adam  would  have  borne  them  in  Paradise  ;  the  innocent 
Christ  bore  them  as  a  natural  matter  of  course.  But  what  is 
the  course  of  nature,  except  the  will  of  God  ?  Reason  bays 
that  if  God  is  good  and  just.  He  will  only  impose  suffering 
where  there  is  guilt.  And  this  is  the  scriptural  account,  "  death 
by  sin." 

Further,  Christ  suffered  far  otherwise  than  is  natural  to 
good  men.  We  do  not  allude  so  much  to  the  peculiar  severity 
of  that  combination  of  poverty,  mahce,  treachery,  destitution, 
slander,  reproach  and  murder,  visited  on  Christ ;  but  to  the 
sense  of  spiritual  death,  the  horror,  the  fear,  the  pressure  of 
God's  wrath  and  desertion,  and  the  satanic  buffetings  let  loose 
against  Him.  (Luke  xxii  :  53  ;  Matt,  xxvi  :  38  ;  xxvii  :  46).  See 
how  manfully  Christ  approaches  His  martyrdom ;  and  how 
sadly  He  sinks  under  it  when  it  comes  !  Had  He  borne  noth- 
ing more  than  natural  evil.  He  would  have  been  inferior  to 
other  merely  human  heroes  ;  and  instead  of  recognizing  the 
exclamation  of  Rousseau  as  just :  "  Socrates  died  like  a  phil- 
osopher ;  but  Jesus  Christ  as  a  God,"  we  must  give  the  palm  of 
superior  fortitude  to  the  Grecian  sage.  Christ's  crushing  ago- 
nies must  be  accounted  for  by  His  bearing  the  wrath  of  God 
for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

Another  just  argument  for  Christ's  proper  vicarious  sacri- 

fice  is  brought  from  the  acknowledged  belief 

Pagan  Sense  of^Word!    ^^  ^^^^  whole   Pagan  world,  at  the  Christian 

era  especially,  concerning  the   meaning  and 

intent  of  their  bloody  sacrifices.     No  one  doubts  that,  however 


5  lis  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

mistaken  the  Pagans  are,  they  have  always  regarded  their 
bloody  sacrifices  as  proper  offerings  for  guilt.  Now,  we  use 
this  fact  in  two  ways.  First.  Here  is  the  great  testimony  of 
man's  universal  conscience  to  the  necessity  of  satisfaction  for 
human  guilt.  Second.  The  sacred  writers  knew  that  this  was 
what  the  whole  world  understood  by  "sacrifice."  Why,  then, 
did  they  call  Jesus  Christ,  in  so  many  phrases,  a  sacrifice  ?  Did 
they  wish  to  deceive  ? 

We  find  another  powerful  Bible  proof,  in  the  import  of  the 
4th.  Jewish  Sense.  Levitical  sacrifices.  This  argument  is  con- 
tained in  two  propositions.  First.  The  theo- 
logical idea  designed  to  be  symbolized  in  the  Levitical  sacri- 
fices, was  a  substitution  of  a  victim,  and  the  vicarious  suffering 
of  it  in  the  room  of  the  offerer,  for  his  guilt.  (See  Levit.  xvii  : 
II  ;  Levit.  i  :  4,  et  passim  ;  xvi  :  21).  Second.  Christ  is  the 
antitype,  of  which  all  these  ceremonies  were  shadows.  (See 
Jno.  i  :  29 ;  i  Cor.  xv  :  3  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  21  ;  Heb.  viii  :  3  ;  ix  : 
1 1-14,  &c.,  &c.)  Now,  surely  the  great  idea  and  meaning  of 
the  types  is  not  lacking  in  the  antitype  !  Surely  the  body  is  not 
more  unsubstantial  than  the  shadow  !  This  important  argument 
may  be  seen  elaborated  with  great  learning  and  justice,  in  the 
standard  works  on  Theology,  as  Dick  or  Ridgley,  in  works  on 
Atonement,  such,  especially,  as  Magee ;  and  in  works  on  the 
sacred  archeology  of  the  Hebrews,  such  as  Outram,  Fairbairn, 
&c.     Hence  few  words  about  it. 

The  value  of  Christ's  work  may  be  said  to  depend  on  the 
5.  C  o  n  d  i  t  i  o  n  s  of   following^  circumstances  : 
Efficacy    of  Christian  The  infinite  dignity  of  His  person.    (See 

Atonement.  l^^^^   xxxix. 

The  possession  of  the  nature  of  His  redeemed  people. 

His  freedom  from  all  prior  personal  obligation  to  obey  and 
suffer. 

His  authority  over  His  own  life,  to  lay  it  down  as  He 
pleased. 

His  voluntariness  in  undertaking  the  task. 

His  explicit  acceptance  by  the  Father  as  our  Priest. 
[These  have  been  already  expounded]. 

His  union  with  His  people. 


LECTURE  XLIII. 

NATURE  OF  CHRIST'S  SACRIFICE.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

6.  Refute  the  Socinian  and  Semi-Pelagian  Objections  to  the  Doctrine  of  vicari- 
ous satisfaction  ;  viz  : 

(a).  That  Satisfaction  and  Remission  are  inconsistent, 
(b).  That  our  theory  makes  out  the  Father  a  vindicitive  being, 
(c).  That  the  only  thanks  are  due  to  Christ. 

(dj.  That  either  the  divine  Nature  must  have  been  the  specific  seat  of  the  suffer- 
ing ;   or  it  else  must  have  been  eternal. 

(e).  That  Imputation  is  immoral  and  a  legal  fiction. 

See  Turrettin,    Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  ii,  and  Vol.  iv.     Disputationes,   20,  21,  de  satis- 

fac.  Chr.     A.  A.  Hodge  on  Atonement,  ch.  20,  pt.  i.      Dr   Ch.  Hodge,  Theo. 

p^.  iii  ch.  7,  §  7.     Dick,  Lect.  58.     Ridgley,    Qu.  44,  g  5.      Watson's  Theo. 

Inst.  ch.  20. 

7.  What  was  the  Design  of  God  in  Christ's  satisfaction,  and  the  extent  of  that 
design?  State  hereon,  (a).  The  Pelagian,  (b).  The  Wesleyan.  (c).  The  Hy- 
potheric  Universalist,  or  "  Armyraut-View."     (d).     The  Calvinist. 

Turretin  Qu.  14.  Hodge  on  Atonement,  pt.  ii.  Hill,  bk.  iv.  ch.  6.  Whitby's 
Five  Points.  Hodge's  Theo.  pt.  iii,  ch.  8.  Cunningham's  Hist.  Theol.  ch.  20, 
§  iv.  Watson's  Theo.  Inst,  especially  ;  ch.  25-38.  Bellamy  Works,  Vol.  i, 
pp.  382,  &c.     Baxter's  Works. 

/^EJECTIONS    to    our    view    of    vicarious   Atonement   are 
^■'^    chiefly  of  Socinian  and  Pelagian  origin,      i.  It  is  objected 
.     .  that  we  represent  the   Father  in  an  odious 

I.      jec  ons.  light,  as  refusing  to  remit  anything  till  His 

vindictiveness  is  satiated,  and  that  to  suppose  full  satisfaction 
made  to  the  penal  demands  of  law,  leaves  no  grace  in  the 
remission  of  sin.     It  is  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt. 

The  answer  to  the    former   part  of  this  objection  is  sug- 
gested in  the  lecture  on  Necessity  of  Atone- 
wia'Stct?„\?™ar  »<="'•.   Add,  that  Christ's  atoning  work  did 
not  dispose  the  Father  to  be  merciful;  but 
the  Father  sent  Him  to  make  it,  because  He  was  eternally  dis- 
posed to  be  merciful.     The  objection  is  Tritheistic.     There  is 
.  no  mercifulness  in  the  Son   that  was  not  equally  in  the  Father. 
To  the   latter  part   of  the  objection   the  answer  is  plain  : 
Satisfaction  to  Law  is  not  incompatible  with  gracious  remission  ; 
unless  the  same  person  pays  the  debt  who  receives  the  grace. 
Does  the  Socinian  rejoin  :  that  still,  the  debt  is  paid,  (we  Cal- 
vinists  say,  fully,)  and  no   matter  by  whom   paid,  it  can  not  be 
remitted  ?     The  answer  is  three-fold :  (a)  There  is  grace  on  the 
Father's  part,  because  He  mercifully  sent  His  Son  to  make  the 
Satisfaction,     (b)  The   distinctions  made   in  the  last  lecture,  in 
defining  Satisfaction,  answer  the  whole  cavil.     As  Satisfaction 
does  not  release  ipso  facto,  the  creditor's  grace  appears  also,  in 
his  optional  assent. 

In   fine :  The   Father's   grace   on   our  scheme  is  infinitely 
33*  513 


5  14  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

higher  than  on  Socinian  or  semi-Pelagian.  According  to  them, 
redemption  only  opens  the  door  for  the  sinner  to  work  out  his 
own  salvation.  He  may  thank  God  and  Christ  somewhat,  for 
being  so  kind  as  to  open  the  door  ;  and  himself  more  for  doing 
the  work  !  But  on  our  scheme,  God,  moved  a  priori  by  His 
own  infinite  mercy,  gives  us  Christ,  to  reconcile  vicariously  the 
divine  attributes  with  our  pardon  ;  and  gives  us  in  Him,  a  com- 
plete justification,  new  heart,  sanctification,  perseverance,  resur- 
rection, and  eternal  life. 

The   Socinians   object,  that   on   our  scheme,  since   Christ 

fully  pays  the  Father,  and  He  remits  nothing, 
be^rafsed."^  ^    "^^^^  °    ^^^    redeemed    have    only    Christ   to    thank. 

The  answer  to  this  is  contained  in  the  pre- 
ceding. 

It  is  a  favourite  objection  of  the  Socinians,  that  if  Christ  is 

.  God,  we  Calvinists  represent  Him  as  placa- 

ca^e  Himself ?^"^   ^  ^"    ^^^S  Himself,  by  His  own  vicarious  offering; 

which  involves  the  absurdity  of  supposing 
Him  so  angry  as  to  demand  penalty,  and  so  merciful  as 
to  pay  it,  all  in  one  breath.  The  answer  is  :  (a)  This  diffi- 
culty concerning  God's  wrath  only  exists,  when  we  view  it 
anthrcpopathically .  (b)  Such  a  state  of  mind,  though  contra- 
dictory in  a  private  person,  who  had  nothing  but  personal  con- 
siderations to  govern  him,  is  not  inconsistent  in  a  public  Person, 
who  has  government  interests  to  reconcile  in  pardoning,  (c)  It 
is  His  humanity  which  suffers  the  penal  satisfaction.  His  divinity 
which  demands  it.  (d)  The  objection  is  an  argument  «/5  ignor- 
antia.  We  do  not  know  all  the  mystery  of  the  persons  in  the 
Trinity,  but  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  Son  acts 
economically  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  as  man's  representa- 
tive, and  the  Father  as  that  of  all  three  persons. 

4.  Socinians  object,  that  since  an  infinite  number  of  sins 
are  to  be  atoned,  Christ  must  have  paid  an  infinite  penalty  ;  and 
therefore  you  must  either  make  His  humanity  suffer  forever,  or 
else  make  His  proper  divinity  suffer.  If  the  latter  alternative 
is  taken,  there  are  two  absurdities.  God  is  impassible.  But 
2d,  if  He  can  suffer  at  all,  one  single  pang  of  pain  was  of  infi- 
nite value  (according  to  Calvinistic  principles),  and  hence  all 
the  rest  was  superfluous  cruelty  in  God. 

The  answers  are  :     First.  Infinite  guilt  demands  an  infinite 
How  Could  Temporal    punishment,  but  not  therefore  an  everlasting 
Suffering  Satisfy  for  In-    one;  provided   the   sufferer  could   suffer   an 
'""'^'^  ^'"^^-  infinite   one   in  a  limited  time.     We  do  not 

view  the  atoning  value  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  as  a  quantity,  to  be 
divided  out  by  pound's  weight,  like  some  material  commodity. 
We  do  not  hold  that  there  must  be  an  arithmetical  relation 
between  the  quantity  of  sacrifice,  and  the  number  and  size  of 
the  sins  to  be  satisfied  for;  nor  do  we  admit  that,  had  the  sins 
of  the  whole  body  of  elect  believers  been  greater,  the  suffer- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  515 

ings  of  the  substitute  must  also  have  been  increased  ;  as  when 
the  merchant  buys  more  pounds  of  the  cornmodity,  he  must  pay 
more  money  for  his  purchase.  The  compensation  made  to  jus- 
tice is  not  commercial,  but  moral.  A  piece  of  money  in  the 
hand  of  a  king  is  worth  no  more  than  in  the  hands  of  a  ser- 
vant ;  but  the  penal  sufferings  of  a  king  are.  One  king  captive 
would  exchange  for  many  captive  soldiers.  Hence,  Christ  paid, 
not  the  very  total  of  sufferings  we  owed,  but  like  sufferings,  not 
of  infinite  amount,  but  of  infinite  dignity. 

Christ's  sufferings  were  vast ;  and  the  capacity  for  feeling 
and  enduring  conferred  on  His  humanity  by  the  united  divinity, 
enabled  Him  to  bear,  in  one  life-time,  great  wrath.  Second. 
It  is  the  great  doctrine  of  hypostatical  union,  according  to 
Heb.  ix  :  14,  which  grounds  the  infinite  value  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings. (See  that  doctrine,  Lect.  39th.)  As  the  infinite  nature 
of  the  God,  against  whom  sin  is  committed,  makes  it  an  infinite 
evil,  although  the  act  of  finite  creature,  so  the  acts  of  Christ's 
human  nature  in  suffering,  have  infinite  value,  because  of  the 
dignity  of  His  person.  As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  Socinian 
objection,  the  answer  is,  that  one  pang,  or  one  drop  of  blood, 
would  not  suffice;  because  the  law  demanded  a  penalty  of 
similar  kind  to  that  incurred  by  man ;  a  bodily  death  and  a 
spiritual  death. 

The  5th,  and  most  radical  objection  is,  that  imputation  is 
at  best  a  legal  fiction  ;  and  vicarious  punish- 
Imputation  not  rnent  intrinsically  immoral.  They  say,  God 
has  pronounced  it  so;  (Deut.  xxiv  :  16; 
Ezek.  xviii  :  4,  20,)  and  the  moral  sense  of  civilized  common- 
wealths, banishing  laws  about  hostages  and  avzalmyoc.  They 
argue  that  the  immorality  of  the  act  is  nothing  but  that  of  the 
agent ;  that  desert  of  punishment  is  nothing  but  this  intuitive 
judgment  of  immorality  in  the  agent,  when  brought  into  rela- 
tion with  law  ;  and  therefore  when  penalty  is  separated  from 
personal  immorality,  it  loses  its  moral  propriety  wholly. 
Hence  guilt  must  be  as  untransferable  as  immorality. 

To  the  scriptural  arguments,  we  answer :  God  forbids 
imputation  of  capital  guilt  by  human  mag- 
urS°  heTeV°  Men^^^'  istrates ;  or  on  special  occasion,  (Ezek.  18th.) 
foregoes  the  exercise  of  it  for  a  time  Himself; 
but  that  He  customarily  claims  the  exercise  of  it  in  His  own 
government,  See  in  Josh,  vii  :  15  ;  Matt,  xxiii  :  35,  The  differ- 
ences between  God's  government  and  man's,  fully  explain  this. 
Human  magistrates  are  themselves  under  law,  in  common  with 
those  they  rule  ;  God  above  law,  and  His  will  is  law.  They 
shortsighted  ;  He  infinitely  wise.  They  cannot  find  one  who  is 
entitled  to  offer  his  life  for  his  neighbor,  it  is  not  his  property ; 
God's  substitute  could  dispose  of  His  own  life.  (Jno.  x:  18.) 
They,  if  the  avxi<p\jy.-'i[o'z  were  found, could  not  ensure  the  repentance 
and  reform  of  the  released  criminal ;  without  which  his  enlarge- 


5l6  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

ment  is  improper;  God  does.  (Acts  v:  31.)  The  human 
avTtipuyoz,  having  sacl'ificed  his  Hfe,  could  never  resume  it,  and 
his  loss  to  the  community  would  be  irreparable ;  so  that  the 
transaction  would  give  to  society  an  injurious  member,  at  the 
expense  of  taking  from  it  a  righteous  and  useful  one.  But 
Christ  resumes  the  life  laid  down,  and  His  useful  position  in 
the  universe.  For  such  reasons  as  these,  it  may  be  improper 
to  have  substitutes  for  capital  guilt  in  man's  government ; 
and  yet  very  proper  in  God's. 

This,  of  course,  implies  that  it  is  only  made  with  the 
free  consent  of  the  substitute.     This  Christ  gave. 

To  the  rational  argument  I  reply  : 
If  the  objection  be    (^O     It  proves    too    much,    viz:    that    there 
True,  then  Pardon  is    can  be  no  remission    in    God's    government 
Immoral.  ^^  ^^      Yox,    when    pardon    is    asserted    on 

the  general  plan  of  the  Socinian  and  rationalist,  the  elements 
of  guilt  and  immorality  are  distinguished  and  separated,  i.  e., 
the  guilt  is  alienated  from  the  sinning  agent,  while  the  bad  char- 
acter remains  his,  so  far  as  the  pardoning  act  is  concerned. 
Is  not  his  own  compunction  the  same  as  before  ?  Hence 
his  repentance ;  and  the  human  reason  apprehends  that  na 
state  of  soul  is  so  appropriate  to  the  pardoned  man,  as  one 
that  abounds  in  the  heartfelt  confessions  of  his  ill  desert. 
But  we  have  proved  irrefragably  that  God's  rectoral  justice 
includes  the  disposition  to  give  appropriate  penalty  to  sin, 
as  truly,  and  in  the  same  way,  as  His  disposition  to  bestow 
appropriate  reward  on  obedience.  The  two  are  correlative. 
If  the  one  sort  of  legal  sanction  is  not  righteously  separable 
from  the  personal  attribute  of  the  agent,  even  with  his  own 
consent,  then  the  other  sort  (the  penal)  is  not.  But  when 
God  treats  the  holy  Surety  as  guilty,  (not  immoral,)  He 
makes  the  same  separation  of  elements,  which  is  made,  if 
He  should,  (without  vicarious  satisfaction,  as  the  rationalists 
say  He  does,)  treat  the  guilty  sinner  as  guiltless  (not  holy) 
by  remitting  a  penalty  of  which  he  continues  to  confess 
himself  personally  deserving,  (as  God     knows  very  well  he  is.) 

(b.)  If  imputation  of  guilt  (without  personal  immor- 
ality) to  Christ  is  unjust,  even  with  His  own  consent;  then 
a  fortiori,  laying  of  sufferings  upon  Him  without  even 
imputed  guilt,  is  still  more  unjust.      This  for  the  Socinian. 

God,  in  His  providential  rule  over  mankind,  often  makes 
this  separation  between  the  personal  bad 
cSlrSLSrSTo-  character  and  penal  consequences ;  for  the 
vidence  and  Society.  punishments  incurred  in  the  course  of  nature 
by  vice,  descend  to  posterity ;  while  so  far 
is  He  from  imputing  the  personal  unworthiness  always  along 
with  the  penalty,  the  patient  and  holy  enduring  of  it  is  counted 
by  Him  an  excellent  virtue.  So,  too,  the  whole  law  of  sympa- 
thy (Rom.  xii:   15;    Gal.   vi :  2,)  makes  the  sympathizer  suffer 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  517 

the  penalty  along  with  the  sufferer,  and  yet,  so  far  from  treating 
him  as  personally  defiled  with  him,  regards  it  as  an  excellent 
virtue. 

(d.)  Man's  own  practical  judgment  habitually  makes  the 
separation  of  elements,  which  the  rationalistic  objection 
declares  impossible ,  and  we  feel  that  the  separation  is  right. 
Thus,  when  the  voluntary  security  relieves  the  bankrupt  debtor, 
it  is  only  at  the  cost  of  what  is  to  him  a  true  mulct  (precisely  the 
penalty  of  the  debtor's  prodigality),  and  we  feel  the  security  is 
rightly  made  to  pay  ;  but  so  far  is  this  from  being  due  to  his 
personal  demerit  in  the  transaction,  we  feel  that  he  is  acting  gen- 
erously and  nobly.  So,  we  feel  that  we  justly  insist  on  main- 
taining certain  social  disabilities  against  children,  incurred  by 
parents'  crimes,  at  the  very  time  we  approve  the  former,  as  per- 
sonally, deserving  people. 

Thus,  by  indirect  refutation,  we  prove  that  the  objection  of 
the  rationalist  to  imputation,  and  the  analysis  on  which  he 
founds  it,  cannot  be  true,  whether  we  are  able  to  specify  its 
error  or  not. 

But  I  think  we  can  specify  it.  It  is  in  ignoring  the  broad  dis- 
tinction which  divines  make  between  poten- 
Actoal  oSlr^'^^  ^""^  tial  and"  actual  guilt— i.  e.,  between  the  qual- 
ity of  ill-desert,  and  the  obligation  to  punish- 
met.  Consider  the  objector's  process  (fairly  stated  above),  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  this  :  Because  the  judgment  we  have  of 
the  ill-desert  of  the  bad  agent  is  nothing  else  than  the  judgment 
we  had  of  his  badness,  viewed  in  its  relation  to  law,  therefore 
his  guilt  (obligation  to  penalty)  is  as  personal  and  inseparable  to 
him,  as  his  quality  of  badness.  This  is  sophism.  The  true 
analysis  is  this. 

The  badness  of  the  act  is  nothing  else  than  the  badness  of 
the  agent;  and  is  his  personal  quality  or  attribute.  The  judg- 
ment of  ill-desert  arises  immediately  therefrom,  when  his  quality 
is  viewed  in  relation  to  law.  True.  But  what  is  law  ?  Relig- 
ion's law  is  nothing  else  than  God's  will,  which  is  its  source  and 
measure.  So  that,  as  our  judgment  of  the  attribute  of  badness 
takes  the  form  of  a  judgment  of  ill-desert,  it  passes  into  a  judg- 
ment of  relation — i.  e.,  between  two  persons,  the  sinner  and  God. 
So  that  even  potential  guilt  is  rather  a  relation  than  an  attrib- 
ute. But  when  we  pass  to  actual  guilt  (which  is  merely  obli- 
gation to  penalty,  a  moral  obligation,  as  I  grant,  and  not 
one  of  force  only),  this  is  not  the  sinner's  attribute  at  all ;  but 
purely  a  relation.  And  although  its  rise  was  mediated  by  the 
personal  attribute  of  badness,  expressed  in  the  guilty  acts,  it  is 
not  a  relation  of  that  attribute,  abstracted,  to  something  else, 
but  of  his  person  to  the  will  of  God — i.  e.,  to  God  willing.  And 
in  this  obligation  to  penalty,  this  sovereign  will  is  obligator.  It 
is  God's  sovereignty,  which,  though  moral,  is  absolute,  that 
imposes  it.     Now,  without  teaching  that  God's  will  is  the  sole 


5l8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

source  of  moral  distinctions,  or  retracting  anything  that  I  have 
said  against  that  error,  I  remark,  that  far  too  httle  weight  is 
attached,  in  the  objection,  to  this  great  fact  that  this  obHgation 
to  penalty,  which  we  denominate  guilt,  is  one  imposed  by  the 
sovereign  and  omnipotent  will  of  our  Maker  and  Proprietor. 
Let  the  mind  take  in  this  fact  properly,  and  it  will  appear  how 
rash  is  the  assertion  that  even  He  may  not,  without  immorality, 
separate  from  the  person  qualified  by  the  attribute  of  badness, 
this  relation  to  penalty,  which  His  own  holy  will  imposes,  even 
though  the  party  to  whom  the  guilt  is  transferred  freely  assents ; 
and  the  divine  ends  in  the  transaction  are  those  of  holiness. 

But  to  return  :  It  appears  that  the  agent's  badness  is  his 
attribute,  his  guilt  is  his  relation  ;  and  that,  a  relation  to  another 
Person  and  will.  The  two  elements  belong  to  different  cate- 
gories in  logic  !  But  did  any  sound  mind  ever  admit  this  as  a 
universal  and  necessary  law  of  logic  (which  it  must  be,  to  make 
the  objection  conclusive):  that  relations  are  as  untransferable  as 
attributes  ;  as  inseparable  from  the  things  related  ?  Is  it  so  in 
geometry  ?  But  it  is  better  to  show,  in  analogous  cases,  that  it 
is  not  so  in  metaphysics ;  e.  g.,  A.  expresses,  by  acts  of  bene- 
ficence towards  me,  his  quality  of  benevolence,  which  institutes 
between  us,  as  persons,  the  relation  of  an  obligation  to  grati- 
tude from  me  to  him.  A.  is  succeeded  by  his  son  ;  and  this  obli- 
gation, in  some  degree,  transfers  itself  and  attaches  itself  to 
that  son,  irrespective  of,  and  in  advance  of,  his  exhibiting  the 
quality  of  benevolence  for  me,  in  his  own  personal  acts.  I  pre- 
sent another  illustration  which  is  also  an  argument,  because  it 
presents  an  exact  analogy — the  obligation  to  recompense — 
resting  on  me  by  reason  of  A's  benefactions  to  me.  I  say  we 
have  here  a  true,  complete  analogy;  because  this  title  to  recom- 
pense from  the  object  of  beneficent  acts  is  a  fair  counterpart  to 
the  obligation  to  bear  a  penalty  from  the  ruler,  who  is  the 
object  (or  injured  party)  of  the  bad  act.  Now,  I  ask — e,  g. :  In 
2  Sam.  xix  ;  31-38,  was  it  incompetent  for  Barzillai,  the  Gilead- 
ite,  to  ask  the  transfer  of  King  David's  obligation  to  recom- 
pense to  his  son  Chimham,  on  the  ground  of  his  own  loyalty  ? 
Did  not  David's  conscience  recognize  his  moral  right  to  make 
the  transfer  ?  But  it  is  made  irrespective  of  the  transfer  of 
Barzillai's  attribute  of  loyalty  to  his  son,  which,  indeed,  was  out 
of  the  question.  Here,  then,  is  the  very  separation  which  I 
claim,  as  made,  in  the  case  of  imputation,  between  the  sinner's 
personal  attribute  (badness),  and  his  personal  relation  to  God's 
sovereign  will,  arising  upon  his  badness  (guilt). 

This  discussion  is  of  fundamental  importance  also,  in  the 
doctrines  of  original  sin  and  justification. 

The  question  of  the  "  extent  of  the  atonement,"  as  it  has 
™      .      ^  been  awkwardly  called,  is  one  of  the  most 

2.   I  heories  of  extent      i-rc       i,     •       .111  r     /^    1    •    •   .  • 

of  the  Atonement.  uilhcult   m  the  whoIe    range    of    Calvmistic 

Theology.     That  man  who  should   profess  to 


OF   LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  5l; 

see  no  force  In  the  objections  to  our  views,  would  only  betray 
the  shallowness  of  his  mind  and  knowledge.  There  are  three 
grades  of  opinion  on  this  subject. 

The  theory  of  the  Semi-Pelagian  denies  any  proper  impu- 
tation of  anv  one's  sins  to  Christ,  makes  His 
RefuSd^'"'"^^^^^'"''    suffering  a  mere  general  exhibition  of  God's 
wrath  against  sin,   having  no  relation   to  one 
person's  sin   in  particular  ;  and  of  course   it  consistently  makes 
the  atonement  perfectly  general  and  indefinite. 

The  refutation  of  this  view  is  found  in  the  facts  already 
argued ;  that  there  was  a  substitution,  a  vicarious  suffering  of 
penalty,  and  a  purchasing  of  the  gracious  gifts  for  the  redeemed 
which  make  up  the  application  of  redemption. 

The  Wesleyan  view  is,  that  there  was  a  substitution  and 
an   imputation ;  and   that   Christ  provided   a 
eseyan.  penal  satisfaction  for  every  individual  of  the 

human  race,  making  His  sins  remissible,  provided  he  believes 
in  Christ ;  and  that  He  also  purchased  for  every  man  the 
remission  of  original  sin,  and  the  gift  of  common  grace,  which 
confers  a  self-determing  power  of  will,  and  enables  any  one  to 
believe  and  repent,  provided  he  chooses  to  use  the  free-will 
thus  graciously  repaired  aright ;  God's  purpose  of  election 
being  conditioned  on  His  foresight  of  how  each  sinner  would 
improve  it. 

The  fatal  objections  to  this  scheme  are,  particularly,  that 
it  is  utterly  overthrown  by  unconditional  election,  which  we 
have  proved,  and  that  the  Scriptures  and  experience  both  con- 
tradict this  common  grace.     But  of  this,  more  hereafter. 

The  view  of  the  Hypothetical  Universalists  was  professedly 
Calvinistic,   and    was  doubtless,   and  is,   sin- 
3  .     myrauts.  cerely  held   in    substance    by    many  honest 

and  intelligent  Calvinists,  (e.  g.,  Richard  Baxter,  R.  Hall,  Bel- 
lamy) although  Turrettin  and  Dr.  Hodge  condemn  it  as  little 
better  than  Arminianism  in  disguise.  It  presents  the  divine  plan 
in  redemption  thus :  God  decreed  from  eternity,  to  create  the 
human  race,  to  permit  the  fall;  then  in  His  infinite  compassion. 
to  send  Christ  to  atone  for  every  human  being's  sins,  (conditioned 
on  his  believing);  but  also  foreseeing  that  all,  in  consequence 
of  total  depravity  and  the  bondage  of  their  will,  would  inevita- 
bly reject  this  mercy  if  left  to  themselves,  He  selected  out  of 
the  whole  a  definite  number  of  elect,  to  whom  He  also  gave,  in 
His  sovereign  love,  grace  to  "  make  them  willing  in  the  day  of 
His  power."  The  non-elect,  never  enjoying  this  persuasive 
grace,  infallibly  choose  to  reject  the  provided  atonement ;  and 
so,  as  its  application  is  suspended  on  faith,  they  fail  to  receive 
the  benefit  of  it,  and  perish. 

This  theory,  if  amended  so  as  to  say  that  God  sent  His 

Son  to  provide  a  vicarious  satisfaction  for  the 

^^^  ■  sin  of  all  whom   His  Providence  intended  to 


520  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

place  under  the  Gospel  offers,  would  be  liable  to  less  objection 
than  the  others.  But  several  objections  lie  against  it.  In  the 
first  place,  the  advantage  proposed  to  be  gained  by  it  appears 
illusory.  It  was  hoped  that  this  view  would  meet  the  cavils 
urged  by  Arminians  against  the  seeming  lack  of  candour  in 
offering  Christ's  sacrifice  for  reconciliation,  to  those  for  whom 
God  never  designed  it.  But  I  submit  that  this  cavil  is  not  in 
the  least  dissolved  by  saying,  that  God  designed  Christ's  sac- 
rifice to  provide  satisfaction  for  every  non-elect  man's  guilt, 
which  would  avail  for  his  atonement  only  on  condition  of  his 
true  faith,  while  the  omniscience  of  God  showed  him  that  this 
sinner  would  certainly  refuse  this  faith,  in  consequence  of  his 
total  depravity,  and  God's  purpose  was  distinctly  formed  not  to 
remove  that  depravity  by  His  effectual  grace.  To  say  that  God 
purposed,  even  conditionally,  the  reconciliation  of  that  sinner 
by  Christ's  sacrifice,  while  also  distinctly  proposing  to  do  noth- 
ing effectual  to  bring  about  the  fulfillment  of  the  condition  He 
knew  the  man  would  surely  refuse,  is  contradictory.  It  is  hard 
to  see  how,  on  this  scheme,  the  sacrifice  is  related  more  bene- 
ficially to  the  non-elect  sinner,  than  on  the  strict  Calvinist's 
plan.  Second  :  The  statement  of  Amyraut  involves  the  same 
vice  of  arrangement  pointed  out  in  the  supralapsarian  and  sub- 
lapsarian  plans  :  it  tends  towards  assigning  a  sequence  to  the 
parts  of  the  decree,  as  it  subsists  in  God's  mind.  He  thinks 
and  purposes  it  as  one  cotemporaneous,  mutually  connected 
whole.  The  student  is  referred  to  the  remarks  already  made 
upon  this  error.  Third,  and  chiefly,  Armyraut  has  to  represent 
the  graces  which  work  effectual  calling,  while  free  and  unmerited, 
indeed,  as  yet  the  free  gift  of  the  Father's  electing  love,  irre- 
spective of  Christ's  purchase,  (for  that  is  represented  as  made  in 
common  for  all)  and  not  mediated  to  the  elect  sinner  through 
Christ's  sacrifice.  Since  Christ's  intercession  is  expressly 
grounded  in  His  sacrifice,  we  shall  have  to  conceive  of  the 
benefit  of  effectual  calling  as  also  not  mediated  to  the  sinner  by 
Christ's  intercession.  But  this  is  all  contrary  to  Scripture  ; 
which  represents  Christ  as  the  channel,  through  which  all  saving 
benefits  come,  and  the  very  graces  which  fulfil  the  instrumental 
conditions  of  salvation  as  a  part  of  His  purchase  for  His  peo- 
ple. See,  for  instance.  Acts  v  :  31  ;  Rom,  viii  :  32;  Eph.  i  :  3, 
4 ;  2  Tim.  i  :  9 ;  Titus,  ii  :  14 ;  2  Pet.  i  :  2,  3. 

The   view  of  the   strict  Calvinist   is  as  follows:     God   de- 
^  .     ^  ,  .  .  .      creed  to  create  the  race,  to  permit  the  fall, 

4.  Strict  Camnistic.  j-i  •        ir-       •    n    -i.  •  tt 

and  then,  m  His  mnnite  compassion,  He 
elected  out  of  the  fallen  an  innumerable  multitude,  chosen  in 
Christ,  to  be  delivered  from  this  ruin ;  and  for  them  Christ  was 
sent,  to  make  full  penal  satisfaction  for  their  unrighteousness, 
and  purchase  for  them  all  graces  of  effectual  calling  and  spiritual 
life  and  bodily  resurrection,  which  make  up  a  complete  redemp- 
tion, by  His  righteousness  and  intercession  founded  thereon. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  521 

It  represents  the  Atonement  as  limited  only  by  the  secret  inten- 
tion of  God  as  to  its  application,  and  not  in  its  own  sufficiency 
for,  or  adaptation  to  all.  Symmetrical  theory,  but  attended 
with  some  difficulties. 

In  proof  of  the  general  correctness  of  this   theory  of  the 
extent  of  the  Atonement,   we  should  attach 

Inconclusive  Proofs,     i.  i-ir  i.  c  j.i.  j. 

but  partial  force  to  some  oi  the  arguments 
advanced  by  Symington  and  others,  or  even  by  Turrettin.  e.  g. 
That  Christ  says,  He  died  "  for  His  sheep,"  for  "  His  Church," 
for  "  His  friends,"  &c.,  is  not  of  itself  conclusive.  The  proof 
of  a  proposition  does  not  disprove  its  converse.  All  the  force 
which  we  could  properly  attach  to  this  class  of  passages  is  the 
probability  arising  from  the  frequent  and  emphatic  repetition 
of  this  affirmative  statement  as  to  a  definite  object.  Nor  would 
we  attach  any  force  to  the  argument,  that  if  Christ  made  penal 
satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  all,  justice  would  forbid  any  to  be 
punished.  To  urge  this  argument  surrenders  virtually  the  very 
ground  on  which  the  first  Socinian  objection  was  refuted,  and  is 
incompatible  with  the  facts  that  God  chastises  justified  believers, 
and  holds  elect  unbelievers  subject  to  wrath  till  they  believe. 
Christ's  satisfaction  is  not  a  pecuniary  equivalent;  but  only  such 
a  one  as  enables  the  Father,  consistently  with  His  attributes,  to 
pardon,  if  in  His  mercy  He  sees  fit.  The  whole  avails  of  the 
satisfaction  to  a  given  man  is  suspended  on  His  belief  There 
would  be  no  injustice  to  the  man,  if  he  remaining  an  unbeliever, 
his  guilt  were  punished  twice  over,  first  in  his  Saviour,  and  then 
in  Him.     See  Hodge  on  Atonement,  page  369. 

But  the  irrefragable  grounds  on  which  we 
vin^sh^c  TlTeo'^"^  ^^"    P^ove  that  the  redemption  is  particular  are 

these : 

(a)  From  the  doctrines  of  unconditional  election,  and  the 
^  Covenant  of  Grace.     (Argument  is  one,  for 

From  Decree.  ^  ^r/-  •     ^     i.  x.ri 

Covenant  01  Grace  is  but  one  aspect  01  elec- 
tion). The  Scriptures  tell  us  that  those  who  are  to  be  saved  in 
Christ  are  a  number  definitely  elected  and  given  to  Him  from 
eternity,  to  be  redeemed  by  His  mediation.  How  can  anything 
be  plainer  from  this  than  that  there  was  a  purpose  in  God's 
atonement,  as  to  them,  other  than  that  it  had  as  to  the  rest  of 
mankind  ?     See  Scriptures. 

(b)  The  immutability  of  God's  purposes.     (Is.  xlvi  :  10;   2 

Tim.  ii  :  19).  If  God  ever  intended  to  save 
taH%  a?d°Power"    ^ny  soul  in  Christ,  [and   He  has  a  definite 

intention  to  save  or  not  to  save  towards  every 
soul],  that  soul  will  certainly  be  saved.  Jno.  x  :  27,  28  ;  vi  : 
37-40.  Hence,  all  whom  God  ever  intended  to  save  in  Christ 
will  be  saved.  But  some  souls  will  never  be  saved  ;  therefore 
some  souls  God  never  intended  to  be  saved  by  Christ's  atone- 
ment. The  strength  of  this  argument  can  scarcely  be  over- 
rated.    Here  it  is  seen  that  a  limit  as  to  the  intention  of  the 


522  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

atonement  must  be  asserted  to  rescue  God's  power,  purpose  and 
wisdom. 

(c)  The  same  fact  is  proved  by  this,  that  Christ's  interces- 

sion is  hmited.     (See  Jno.  xvii  :  9,  20).     We 
Christ's  Intercession    ^^^^   ^^^^   Christ's    intercession    is    always 

Limited.  ...  .  \        "rr 

prevalent.  (Rom.  via  :  34  ;  Jno.  xi  :  42).  it 
He  interceded  for  all,  all  would  be  saved.  But  all  wdll  not  be 
saved.  Hence  there  are  some  for  whom  He  does  not  plead  the 
merit  of  His  atonement.  But  He  is  the  "  same  yesterday,  to- 
day and  forever."  Hence  there  were  some  for  whom,  when  He 
made  atonement,  He  did  not  intend  to  plead  it. 

(d)  Some  sinners  (i.  e.,  elect),  receive   from   God  gifts  of 
'  conviction,  regeneration,  faith,  persuading  and 

enabling  them  to  embrace  Christ,  and  thus 
make  His  atonement  effectual  to  themselves  ;  while  other  sin- 
ners do  not.  But  these  graces  are  a  part  of  the  purchased 
redemption, and  bestowed  through  Christ.  Hence  His  redemp- 
tion was  intended  to  affect  some  as  it  did  not  others.  (See 
above). 

(e)  Experience  proves  the  same.  A  large  part  of  the 
human  race  were  already  in  hell  before  the  atonement  was 
made.  Another  large  part  never  hear  of  it.  But  "faith  com- 
eth  by  hearing."  (Rom.  x),  and  faith  is  the  condition  of  its 
application.  Since  their  condition  is  determined  intentionally 
by  God's  providence,  it  could  not  be  His  intention  that  the 
atonement  should  avail  for  them  equally  with  those  who  hear 
and  believe.  This  view  is  .destructive,  particularly,  of  the 
Arminian  scheme. 

(f )  "  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay 

down  his  life  for  his  friends."  But  the  greater 
Chr[s°t's  Love?  "^^^  °  includes  the  less;  whence  it  follows,  that  if 
God  the  Father  and  Christ  cherished  for  a 
given  soul  the  definite  electing  love  which  was  strong  enough  to 
pay  for  him  the  sacrifice  of  Calvary,  it  is  not  credible  that  this , 
love  would  then  refuse  the  less  costly  gifts  of  effectual  calling 
and  sustaining  grace.  This  is  the  very  argument  of  Rom.  v  : 
10,  and  viii :  31-end.  This  inference  would  not  be  conclusive,  if 
drawn  merely  from  the  benf^volence  of  God's  nature,  sometimes 
called  in  Scripture,  "  his  love  ;  "  but  in  every  case  of  his  defi- 
nite electing  love,  it  is  demonstrative. 

Hence,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  us  to  retain  the 
dogma,  that  Christ,  in  design,  died  equal  y  for  all.  We  are 
compelled  to  hold  that  He  died  for  Peter  and  Paul  in  some 
sense  in  which  He  did  not  for  Judas.  No  consistent  mind  can 
hold  the  Calvinistic  creed,  as  to  man's  total  depravity  towards 
God,  his  inability  of  will,  God's  decree,  God's  immutable  attri- 
butes of  sovereignty  and  omnipotence  over  free  agents,  omni- 
science and  wisdom,  and  stop  short  of  this  conclusion.  So 
much  every  intelligent  opponent  admits,  and  in  disputing  par- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  '  525 

ticular  redemption  to  this  extent,  at  least,  he  always  attacks 
these  connected  truths  as  falling  along  with  the  other. 

In  a  word,  Christ's  work  for  the  elect  does  not  merely  put 
them  in  a  salvable  state  ;  but  purchases  for  them  a  complete 
and  assured  salvation.  To  him  who  knows  the  depravity  and 
bondage  of  his  own  heart,  any  less  redemption  than  this  would 
bring  no  comfort. 

But  the  difficulties  which  beset  the  subject  are  great ;  and 
But  the  Subject  Dif-  ^nless  you  differ  from  me,  you  will  feel  that 
ficult.  (a)  From  Uni-  the  manner  in  which  they  are  dealt  with  by 
versal  Offer  of  Atone-  gome  Calvinistic  writers,  is  unsatisfactory. 
The  objections  are  of  two  classes  :  From 
the  universal  offer  of  atonement  through  Christ,  and  from  Scrip- 
ture. The  fact  that  God  makes  this  offer  literally  universal^ 
cannot  be  doubted,  nor  must  we  venture  to  insinuate  that  He 
is  not  sincere  therein.  (Matt,  xxviii  :  19;  Mark  xvi  :  16,  17). 
The  usual  answer  given  by  Calvinists  of  the  rigid  school  to  this 
objection  is,  that  God  may  sincerely  offer  this  salvation  to  every 
creature,  because,  although  not  designed  for  all,  it  is  in  its 
nature  sufficient  for,  and  adapted  to  all.  They  say  that  since 
Christ's  sacrifice  is  of  infinite  value,  and  as  adequate  for  cover- 
ing all  the  sins  of  every  sinner  in  the  universe,  as  of  one  ;  and 
since  Christ  bears  the  common  nature  of  all  sinners,  and  God's 
revealed,  and  not  His  secret,  decretive,  will  is  the  proper  rule  of 
man's  conduct,  this  satisfaction  may  be  candidly  offered  to  all. 
Arminians  rejoin,  that  this  implies  an  adoption  of  their  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  as  a  general  satisfaction 
for  human  guilt  as  a  mass  and  whole  ;  that  the  punishment  of 
gospel-hardened  sinners  for  unbelief  (which  we  admit  will 
occur),  would  be  unjust  on  our  scheme,  since  by  it  they  would 
be  punished  for  not  believing  what  would  not  be  true,  if  they 
had  believed  it ;  and  that  since,  on  our  scheme  the  believing  of 
a  non-elect  sinner  is  not  naturally,  but  only  morally  impossible, 
it  is  a  supposable  case  for  argument's  sake,  and  this  case  sup- 
posed, God  could  not  be  sincere,  unless  such  a  sinner  should  be 
saved  in  Christ,  supposing  He  came.  The  honest  mind  will 
feel  these  objections  to  be  attended  with  real  difficulty.  Thus, 
in  defining  the  nature  of  Christ  vicarious  work,  Calvinists  assert 
a  proper  substitution  and  imputation  of  individuals'  sins.  On 
the  strict  view,  the  sins  of  the  non-elect  were  never  imputed  to 
Christ.  The  fact,  then,  that  an  infinite  satisfaction  was  made 
for  imputed  guilt,  does  not  seem  to  be  a  sufficient  ground  for 
offering  the  benefits  thereof  to  those  whose  sins  were  never 
imputed. 

The  student  should  understand  fully  the  ingenious  perti- 
nacity, with  which  this  line  of  objection  is  urged,  and  re-in- 
forced  ;  from  the  command  which  makes  it  all  sinners'  duty  to 
believe  on  Christ  for  their  own  salvation  ;  from  the  alleged  impos- 
sibility of  their  reaching  any  appropriating  faith  by  the  Calvin- 


524  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

istic  view,  and  from  the  various  warnings  of  Scripture,  which 
clearly  contemplate  the  possible  destruction  of  one  for  whom 
Christ  died.  Our  opponents  proceed  thus.  God  commands 
every  man  to  believe  on  Christ.  But  since  only  an  appropri- 
ating faith  saves,  and  since  God  of  course  calls  for  a  saving 
faith,  and  not  the  faith  of  Devils  :  God  commands  every  man 
to  appropriate  Christ  by  h's  faith.  But  the  man  for  whom 
Christ  did  not  die  has  no  right  to  appropriate  Him  :  it  would 
be  erroneous  presumption,  and  not  faith.  Again  :  both  Roman- 
ists and  Arminians  object,  that  the  strict  Calvinistic  scheme 
would  make  it  necessary,  for  a  man's  mind  to  pass  through  and 
accept  a  paralogism,  in  order  to  believe  unto  salvation.  This 
point  may  be  found,  stated  with  the  utmost  adroitness,  in  the 
works  of  Bellamy,  {loco  citato).  He  argues  :  if  I  know  that 
Christ  died  only  for  the  elect,  then  I  must  know  whether  I  am 
elect,  in  order  to  be  sure  that  He  died  for  me.  But  God's  elec- 
tion is  secret,  and  it  is  mere  fanaticism  to  pretend  that  I  know 
my  own  election  by  direct  revelation.  My  name  is  nowhere 
set  down  specifically  in  the  Bible.  That  iDook  directs  me  to 
find,  out  my  election  a  posteriori,  by  finding  in  my  own  graces 
the  results  of  the  secret  decree  towards  me.  Thus  I  am  shut 
up  to  this  sophism,  in  order  to  obey  God's  command  to  believe  : 
I  must  assume,  in  advance  of  proof,  that  I  am  elected,  in  order 
to  attain  through  faith  the  Christian  traits,  by  which  alone  I  can 
infer  that  I  am  elected.  The  third  argument  is  that  founded  on 
the  warnings  against  apostasy.  In  Rom.  xiv  :  15,  for  instance, 
the  Apostle  cautions  strong  Christians  "  not  to  destroy,  with 
their  meat,  those  for  whom  Christ  died."  Hebrews  x  :  29,  the 
apostate  "  counts  the  blood  of  the  covenant  wherewith  he  was 
sanctified,  an  unholy  thing."  2  Peter  ii  :  i,  heretics  "  even  deny 
the  Lord  that  bought  them."  Here,  it  is  urged,  Calvinists  must 
either  hold  that  some  of  the  elect  perish,  or  that  Christ  died  for 
others  than  the  elect. 


The  other  class  of  objections  is  from  the  Scriptures  ; 


e    cr 


[b]  From  Texts  Tliose  which  speak  of  Christ  as  having  com- 
Teaching  a  Seeming  passion  for,  or  dving  for,  "  the  whole  world," 
Universality.  ..  ^ii^"    «  ^^  ^^^^^    u  ^^^^.^  ^^^^n  ^^       j^^   j  . 

29  ;  Jno.  iii  :  16  ;  iv  :  42  ;  vi  :  51  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  19  ;  i  Jno.  ii  :  i, 
2 ;  Jno.  xii  :  32  ;  I  Cor.  xv  :  22 ;  2  Cor.  v  :  14,  1 5  ;  i  Tim.  ii  :  6  ; 
I  Tim.  iv  :  10;  Heb.  ii  :  9,  &c.  The  usual  explanation,  offered 
by  the  strict  Calvinists,  of  these  texts  is  this  :  that  terms  seem- 
ingly universal  often  have  to  be  limited  to  a  universality  witliin 
certain  bounds  by  the  context,  as  in  Matt,  iii  :  5  ;  that  in  New 
Testament  times,  especially  when  the  gospel  was  receiving  its 
grand  extension  from  one  little  nation  to  all  nations,  it  is  reason- 
able to  expect  that  strong  affirmatives  would  be  used  as  to  its 
extent,  which  yet  should  be  strained  to  mean  nothing  more  than 
this  :  that  persons  of  every  nation  in  the  world  were  given  to 
Christ.     Hence,  "  the  world,"  "  all  the  world,"  should  be  taken 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  525: 

to  mean  no  more  than  people  of  every  nation  in  the  world, 
without  distinction,  &c.  There  is  a  certain  amount  of  justice  in 
these  views  ;  and  many  of  these  passages,  as  i  Cor.  xv  :  22  ; 
Jno.  i  :  29,  and  xii  :  32,  may  be  adequately  explained  by  them. 
The  explanation  is  also  greatly  strengthened  by  this  fact,  too 
little  pressed  by  Calvinists,  that  ultimately,  the  vast  majority  of 
the  whole  mass  of  humanity,  including  all  generations,  will  be 
actually  redeemed  by  Christ.  There  is  to  be  a  time,  blessed  be 
God,  when  literally  all  the  then  world  will  be  saved  by  Christ, 
when  the  world  will  be  finally,  completely,  and  wholly  lifted  by 
Christ  out  of  the  gulf,  and  sink  no  more.  So  that  there  is  a 
sense,  most  legitimate,  in  which  Christ  is  the  prospective  Saviour 
of  the  world. 

But  there  are  others  of  these  passages,  to  which  I  think, 
the  candid  mind  will  admit,  this  sort  of  explanation  is  inappli- 
cable. In  Jno.  iii  ;  16,  make  "  the  world  "  which  Christ  loved, 
to  mean  "  the  elect  world  ;"  and  we  reach  the  absurdity,  that 
some  of  the  elect  may  not  believe,  and  perish.  In  2  Cor.  v  : 
15,  if  we  make  the  all  for  whom  Christ  died,  mean  only  the  all 
who  live  unto  Him — i.  e.,  the  elect — it  would  seem  to  be  implied 
that  of  those  elect  for  whom  Christ  died,  only  a  part  will  live  to 
Christ.  In  i  Jno.  ii  :  2,  it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  the 
express  phrase,  "  whole  world,"  can  be  restrained  to  the  world 
of  elect  as  including  other  than  Jews.  For  it  is  indisputable, 
that  the  Apostle  extends  the  propitiation  of  Christ  beyond 
those  whom  he  speaks  of  as  "  we,"  in  verse  first.  The  interpre- 
tation described  obviously  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that  these 
are  only  Jewish  believers.  Can  this  be  substantiated  ?  Is  this 
catholic  epistle  ■  addressed  only  to  Jews?  This  is  more  than 
doubtful.  It  would  seem  then,  that  the  Apostle's  scope  is,  tO' 
console  and  encourage  sinning  believers  with  the  thought,  that 
since  Christ  made  expiation  for  every  man,  there  is  no  danger 
that  He  will  not  be  found  a  propitiation  for  them  who,  having 
already  believed,  now  sincerely  turn  to  him  from  recent  sins. 

Having  made  these  candid  admissions,  I  now  return  to  test 
the  opposing  points    above  recited.     I  take 
"^^^"^^^  them    in    reversed    order.     The  language   of 

Peter,  and  that  of  Hebrews  x  :  24,  may  receive  an  entirely  ade- 
quate solution,  without  teaching  that  Christ  actually  "  bought," 
or  "  sanctified  "  any  apostate,  by  saying  that  the  Apostles  speak, 
there  "  ad  homineuiy  The  crime  of  the  heretic  is  justly  en- 
hanced by  the  fact,  that  the  Christ,  whose  truth  he  is  now  out- 
raging, is  claimed  by  him  as  gracious  Redeemer.  It  is  always 
fair  to  hold  a  man  to  the  results  of  his  own  assertions.  This 
heretic  says  Christ  has  laid  him  under  this  vast  debt  of  grati- 
tude :  so  much  the  worse  then,  that  he  should  injure  his  asserted 
benefactor.  But  there  is  another  view  :  The  addressing  of  hypo- 
thetical warnings  of  apostasy  or  destruction  to  believers  is 
wholly  compatible  with  the  efficacy  of  Christ's  work,  and  the 


526  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

immutability  of  God's  counsel  for  them.  For  that  couasel  is 
executed  in  them,  by  moral  and  rational  means,  among  which 
the  force  of  truth  holds  the  prime  place.  And  among  these 
truths,  the  fact  that  if  they  are  not  watchful  and  obedient,  pro- 
fessed believers  may  fall,  is  most  reasonably  calculated  to  pro- 
duce watchfulness.  But  naturally  speaking,  they  may  fall ;  for 
the  impossibility  of  destroying  the  elect  is  only  moral,  proceed- 
ing from  the  secret  purpose  of  God.  This  important  view  will 
be  farther  illustrated  and  defended  when  we  argue  the  perseve- 
rance of  the  saints :  where  it  will  be  found  to  have  a  similar 
application. 

The  second  and  first  objections  really  receive  the  same 
solution.  That  the  process  described  by  Dr.  Bellamy  is  a  par- 
alogism, we  freely  admit.  But  Calvinists  do  not  consider  it  as 
a  fair  statement  of  the  mode  in  which  the  mind  of  a  believer 
moves.  Turrettin  (Loc.  xiv  :  Qu.  14,  §  45,  &c.)  has  given  an 
exhaustive  analysis  of  this  difficulty,  as  well  as  of  its  kindred 
one.  He  had  distinguished  the  reflex,  from  the  direct  actings 
of  faith.  He  now  reminds  the  objector,  that  the  assurance  of 
our  own  individual  interest  in  God's  purposes  of  mercy  is 
reached  only  a  posteriori,  and  by  this  reflex  element  of  faith.  The 
reflex  element  cannot  logically  arise,  until  the  direct  has  scrip- 
tural place  in  the  soul.  What  then  is  the  objective  proposition, 
on  which  every  sinner  is  commanded  to  believe  ?  It  is  not, 
that  "Christ  designed  His  death  expressly  for  me."  But  it  is, 
"  whosoever  believeth  shall  be  saved."  This  warrant  is  both 
.general  and  specific  enough  to  authorize  any  man  to  venture  on 
Christ.  The  very  act  of  venturing  on  Him  brings  that  soul 
within  the  whosoever.  It  is  only  voluntary  unbelief  which  can 
ground  an  exclusion  of  any  man  from  that  invitation,  so  that  it 
is  impossible  that  any  man,  who  wishes  to  come  to  Christ,  can 
be  embarrassed  by  any  lack  of  warrant  to  come.  But  now,  the 
soul,  having  believingly  seen  the  warrant,  "whosoever  believeth 
shall  be  saved,"  and  becoming  conscious  of  its  own  hearty  faith, 
draws,  by  a  reflex  act,  the  legitimate  deduction  ;  "  Since  I 
believe,  I  am  saved."  Unless  he  has  first  trusted  in  the  general 
invitation,  we  deny  that  he  has  any  right,  or  that  God  makes  it 
his  duty,  to  draw  that  inference.  Hence,  we  deny  that  God 
commands  the  sinner  to  believe  himself  elected,  or  to  believe 
himself  saved,  by  the  primary  act  of  his  faith.  The  Armin- 
ian  asks:  Does  not  God,  in  requiring  him  to  believe,  require 
him  to  exercise  all  the  parts  of  a  saving  faith?  I  reply: 
He  does  ;  but  not  out  of  their  proper  order.  He  requires  the 
lost  sinner  first  to  accept  the  general  warrant,  "  whosoever 
will,"  in  order  that  he  may,  thereby,  proceed  to  the  deduction ; 
"  Since  I  have  accepted  it  I  am  saved."  Thus  it  appears, 
that  in  order  for  the  sinner  to  see  his  warrant  for  coming  to 
Christ,  it  is  not  necessary  for  him  presumptuously  to  assume 
his  own  election ;  but  after  he  embraces  Christ,  he  learns  his 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  52/ 

election,    in    the    scriptural    way    pointed    out  by  Peter,  from 

his  calling. 

This    seems,    then,    to    be    the    candid    conclusion :    that 

^      ,    .  there  is  no  pasaage  in  the  Bible  which  asserts 

Conclusion.  •    ,       .  •  ,  ,  , 

an    mtention    to    apply    redemption    to  any 

others  than  the  elect,  on  the  part  of  God  and  Christ ;    but  that 

there  are  passages  which  imply  that  Christ  died  for  all   sinners 

in  some   sense,   as  Dr.  Ch.   Hodge  has  so  expressly  admitted. 

Certainly   the  expiation   made    by   Christ    is  so  related   to   all, 

irrespective  of  election,   that  God    can  sincerely    invite   all  to 

enjoy   its   benefits,  that  every  soul   in  the  world   who   desires 

salvation  is  warranted  to  appropriate  it ;  and  that  even  a  Judas, 

had  he  come  in  earnest,  would  not  have  been  cast  out. 

But  the  arguments  which  we  adduced  on  the  affirmative 
side  of  the  question  demonstrate  that  Christ's  redeeming  work 
was  limited  in  intention  to  the  elect.  The  Arminian  dogma 
that  He  did  the  same  redeeming  work  in  every  respect  for  all, 
is  preposterous  and  unscriptural.  But  at  the  same  time,  if  the 
Calvinistic  scheme  be  strained  as  high  as  some  are  inclined,  a 
certain  amount  of  justice  will  be  found  against  them  in  the 
Arminian  objections.  Therefore,  In  mediis  tiitissime  ibis.  The 
well  known  Calvinistic  formula,  that  "Christ  died  sufficiently 
for  all,  efficaciously  for  the  Elect,"  must  be  taken  in  a  sense 
consistent  with  all  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  are  cited 
above. 

I  will  endeavor  to  contribute  what  I  can  to  the  adjustment 
of  this  intricate  subject  in  the  form  of  a  series  of  remarks. 

The  difficulty  which  besets  this  solemn  subject  is  no  doubt 
The  Difficulty  the  !"  P^^^  insuperable  for  finite  minds.  Indeed, 
Same  as  in  the  Decree,  it  is  the  same  difficulty  which  besets  the  rela- 
te be  Resolved  in  the    tion  of  God's  election  to  man's  free  aeencv 

Same  Way.  i       a         ,  \  .  .      °         -^ ' 

•'  (and  not  a  new  one),  re-appearing  m  a  new 

phase ;  for  redemption  is  limited  precisely  by  the  decree,  and 
by  nothing  else.  We  shall  approximate  a  solution  as  nearly  as 
is  perhaps  practicable  for  man,  by  considering  the  same  truths 
to  which  we  resort  in  the  seeming  paradox  arrising  from  elec- 
tion. There  are  in  the  Bible  two  classes  of  truths ;  those 
which  are  the  practical  rule  of  exertion  for  man  in  his  own  free 
agency;  and  those  which  are  the  recondite  and  non-practical 
explanations  of  God's  action  towards  us  ;  e.  g.,  in  Jno.  v  :  40 
is  the  one;  in  Jno.  vi  :  44  is  the  other.  In  Jno.  3:  36  is  one; 
in  2  Thess.  ii  :  13  is  the  other.  In  Rev.  xxii  :  17  is  one;  in 
Rom.  ix  :  16  is  the  other.  These  classes  of  truths,  when  drawn 
face  to  face,  often  seem  paradoxical ;  but  when  we  remember 
that  God's  sovereignty  is  no  revealed  rule  for  our  action,  and 
that  our  inability  to  do  our  duty  without  sovereign  grace 
arises  only  from  our  voluntary  depravity,  we  see  that  there  is 
no  real  collision. 

Now  Christ  is  a  true  substitute.     His  sufferings  were  penal 


528  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

and  vicarious,  and  made  a  true  satisfaction 
not  Commercial.^  '^'^  °"  ^^^  ^^^  tliose  who  actually  embrace  them  by 
faith.  But  the  conception  charged  on  us 
seems  to  be,  as  though  Christ's  expiation  were  a  web  of  the 
garment  of  righteousness,  to  be  cut  into  definite  pieces,  and  dis- 
tributed out,  so  much  to  each  person  of  the  elect ;  whence,  of 
course,  it  must  have  a  definite  aggregate  length,  and  had  God 
seen  fit  to  add  any  to  the  number  of  elect.  He  must  have  had  an 
additional  extent  of  web  woven.  This  is  all  incorrect.  Satisfaction 
was  Christ's  indivisible  act,  and  inseparable  vicarious  merit, 
infinite  in  moral  value,  the  whole  in  its  unity  and  completeness, 
imputed  to  every  believing  elect  man,  without  numerical  divis- 
ion, substraction  or  exhaustion.  Had  there  been  but  one  elect 
man,  his  vicarious  satisfaction  had  been  just  what  it  is  in  its 
essential  nature.  Had  God  elected  all  sinners,  there  would  have 
been  no  necessity  to  make  Christ's  atoning  sufferings  essentially 
different.  Remember,  the  limitation  is  precisely  in  the  decree, 
and  no  where  else.  It  seems  plain  that  the  vagueness  and 
ambiguity  of  the  modern  term  "  atonement,"  has  very  much 
complicated  the  debate.  This  word,  not  classical  in  the 
Reformed  theology,  is  used  sometimes  for  satisfaction  for  guilt, 
sometimes  for  the  reconciliation  ensuing  thereon  ;  until  men  on 
both  sides  of  the  debate  have  forgotten  the  distinction.  The 
one  is  cause  ;  the  other  effect.  The  only  NewTestament  sense 
the  word  atonement  has  is  that  of  '/.ara/JMy/^,  reconciliation.  But 
expiation  is  another  idea.  KaTaA/Myij  is  personal.  f'^cAaa/jto:;  is 
impersonal.  ka.zaJlayrj  is  multiplied,  being  repeated  as  often  as 
a  sinner  comes  to  the  expiatory  blood :  e^c/Maiio:^  is  single, 
unique,  complete  ;  and,  in  itself  considered,  has  no  more  rela- 
tion to  one  man's  sins  than  another.  As  it  is  applied  in  effect- 
ual calling,  it  becomes  personal,  and  receives  a  limitation.  But 
in  itself,  limitation  is  irrelevant  to  it.  Hence,  when  men  use  the 
word  atonement,  as  they  so  often  do,  in  the  sense  of  expiation,, 
the  phrases,  "  limited  atonement,"  "  particular  atonement,"  have 
no  meaning.  Redemption  is  limited,  i.  e.,  to  true  believers,  and 
is  particular.     Expiation  is  not  limited. 

There  is  no  safer  clue  for  the  student    through  this  per- 
plexed subject,  than  to  take  this  proposition  ; 
3-  God's  Design  and    ^yhi^h,  to  every  Cavanist,  is  nearly  as  indis- 
tensive.  putable   as  a  truism  ;    Christ  s  design  in  hlis 

vicarious  work  was  to  effectuate  exactly 
what  it  does  effectuate,  and  all  that  it  effectuates,  in  its  subse- 
quent proclamation.  This  is  but  saying  that  Christ's  purpose 
is  unchangeable  and  omnipotent.  Now,  what  does  it  actually 
effectuate  ?     "  We  know  only  in  part ;  "  but  so  much  is  certain  : 

(a.)     The  purchase  of  the  full  and  assured  redemption  of 
all  the  elect,  or  of  all  believers. 

(b.)     A  reprieve  of  doom  for  every  sinner  of  Adam's  race 
who  does  not  die  at  his  birth.  (For  these  we  believe  it  has  pur- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY. 


529 


chased  heaven).  And  this  reprieve  gains  for  all,  many  substan- 
tial, though  temporal  benefits,  such  as  unbelievers,  of  all  men, 
will  be  the  last  to  account  no  benefits.  Among  these  are  post- 
ponement of  death  and  perdition,  secular  well-being,  and  the 
bounties  of  life. 

(c.)  A  manifestation  of  God's  mercy  to  many  of  the  non- 
elect,  to  all  those,  namely,  who  live  under  the  Gospel,  in  sin- 
cere offers  of  a  salvation  on  terms  of  faith.  And  a  sincere  offer 
is  a  real  and  not  a  delusive  benefaction ;  because  it  is  only  the 
recipient's  contumacy  which  disappoints  it. 

(d.)  A  justly  enhanced  condemnation  of  those  who  reject 
the  Gospel,  and  thereby  a  clearer  display  of  God's  righteousness 
and  reasonableness  in  condemning,  to  all  the  worlds. 

(e.)  A  disclosure  of  the  infinite  tenderness  and  glory  of 
God's  compassion,  with  purity,  truth  and  justice,  to  all  rational 
creatures. 

Had  there  been  no  mediation  of  Christ,  we  have  not  a  parti- 
cle of  reason  to  suppose  that  the  doom  of  our  sinning  race 
would  have  been  delayed  one  hour  longer  than  that  of  the 
fallen  angels.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  it  is  Christ  who  pro- 
cures for  non-elect  sinners  all  that  they  temporarily  enjoy, 
which  is  more  than  their  personal  deserts,  including  the  sincere 
offer  of  mercy.  In  view  of  this  fact,  the  scorn  which  Dr. 
William  Cunningham  heaps  on  the  distinction  of  a  special,  and 
general  design  in  Christ's  satisfaction,  is  thoroughly  short- 
sighted. All  wise  beings  (unless  God  be  the  exception),  at 
times  frame  their  plans  so  as  to  secure  a  combination  of  results 
from  the  same  means.  This  is  the  very  way  they  display  their 
ability  and  wisdom.  Why  should  God  be  supposed  incapable 
of  this  wise  and  fruitful  acting  ?  I  repeat ;  the  design  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  must  have  been  to  effectuate  just  what  it  does  effectu- 
ate. And  we  see,  that,  along  with  the  actual  redemption  of 
the  elect,  it  works  out  several  other  subordinate  ends.  There 
is  then  a  sense,  in  which  Christ  "died  for  "  all  those  ends,  and 
for  the  persons  affected  by  them. 

,     The  manner  in   which   a  volition   which  dates  from   eter- 
nity, subsists  in   the  Infinite   mind,  is  doubt- 
4.  God'sVolitionsArise  less,  in  many  respects,  inscrutable  to  us.   But 

out  of   a   Complex    01     .  ^      ,  .  •'  F,         ' .  -ulil 

Motive.  smce  God  has  told  us  that  we  are  made  in  His 

image,  we  may  safely  follow  the  Scriptural 
representations,  which  describe  God's  volitions  as  having  their 
rational  relation  to  subjective  motive  j  somewhat  as  in  man, 
when  he  wills  aright.  For,  a  motiveless  volition  cannot  but 
appear  to  us  as  devoid  both  of  character  and  of  wisdom.  We 
add,  that  while  God  "  has  no  parts  nor  passions,"  He  has  told 
us  that  He  has  active  principles,  which,  while  free  from  all  agi- 
tation, ebb  and  flow,  and  mutation,  are  related  in  their  superior 
measure  to  man's  rational  affections.  These  active  principles 
in  God,  or  passionless  affections,  are  all  absolutely  holy  and 
34* 


530  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

good.  Last :  God's  will  is  also  regulated  by  infinite  wisdom. 
Now,  in  man,  every  rational  volition  is  prompted  by  a  motive, 
which  is  in  every  case,  complex  to  this  degree,  at  least  that  it 
involves  some  active  appetency  of  the  will  and  some  prevalent 
judgment  of  the  intelligence.  And  every  wise  volition  is  the 
result  of  virtual  or  formal  deliberation,  in  which  one  element  of 
motive  is  weighed  in  relation  to  another,  and  the  elements 
which  appear  superior  in  the  judgment  of  the  intelligence,  pre- 
ponderate and  regulate  the  volition.  Hence,  the  wise  man's 
volition  is  often  far  from  being  the  expression  of  every  con- 
ception and  affection  present  in  his  consciousness  at  the  time ; 
but  it  is  often  reached  by  holding  one  of  these  elements  of  pos- 
sible motive  in  check,  at  the  dictate  of  a  more  controlling  one. 
For  instance  a  philanthropic  man  meets  a  distressed  and  desti- 
tute person.  The  good  man  is  distinctly  conscious  in  himself 
of  a  movement  of  sympathy  tending  towards  a  volition  to  give 
the  sufferer  money.  But  he  remembers  that  he  has  expressly 
promised  all  the  money  now  in  his  possession,  to  be  paid  this 
very  day  to  a  just  creditor.  The  good  man  bethinks  himself, 
that  he  "  ought  to  be  just  before  he  is  generous,"  and  conscience 
and  wisdom  counterpoise  the  impulse  of  sympathy  ;  so  that  it 
does  not  form  the  deliberate  volition  to  give  alms.  But  the 
sympathy  f^xists,  and  it  is  not  inconsistent  to  give  other  express- 
ion to  it.  We  must  not  ascribe  to  that  God  whose  omniscience 
is,  from  eternity,  one  infinite,  all-embracing  intuition,  and  whose 
volition  is  as  eternal  as  His  being,  any  expenditure  of  time  in 
any  process  of  deliberation,  nor  any  temporary  hesitancy  or 
uncertainty,  nor  any  agitating  struggle  of  feeling  against  feeling. 
But  there  must  be  a  residiiiuii  of  meaning  in  the  Scripture  rep- 
resentations of  His  affections,  after  we  have  guarded  our- 
selves duly  against  the  anthropopathic  forms  of  their  expression. 
Hence,  we  ought  to  believe,  that  in  some  ineffable  way,  God's 
volitions,  seeing  they  are  supremely  wise,  and  profound,  and 
right,  do  have  that  relation  to  all  His  subjective  motives, 
digested  by  wisdom  and  holiness  into  the  consistent  combina- 
tion, the  finite  counterpart  of  which  constitutes  the  rightness 
and  wisdom  of  human  volitions.  I  claim,  while  exercising  the 
diffidence  proper  to  so  sacred  a  matter,  that  this  conclusion 
bears  us  out  at  least  so  far:  That,  as  in  a  wise  man,  so  much 
more  in  a  wise  God,  His  volition,  or  express  purpose,  is  the 
result  of  a  digest,  not  of  one,  but  of  all  the  principles  and  con- 
siderations bearing  on  the  case.  Hence  it  follows,  that  there 
may  be  in  God  an  active  principle  felt  by  Him,  and  yet  not  ex- 
pressed in  His  executive  volition  in  a  given  case,  because  coun- 
terpoised by  other  elements  of  motive,  which  His  holy  omnis- 
cence  judges  ought  to  be  prevalent.  Now,  I  urge  the  practical 
question  :  Why  may  not  God  consistently  give  some  other 
expression  to  this  active  principle,  really  and  sincerely  felt 
towards  the  object,  though  His  sovereign  wisdom  judges  it  not 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  53 1 

proper  to  express  it  in  volition  ?  To  return  to  the  instance 
from  which  we  set  out :  I  assert  that  it  is  entirely  natural  and 
reasonable  for  the  benevolent  man  to  say  to  the  destitute  person : 
"  I  am  sorry  for  you,  though  I  give  you  no  alms."  The  ready 
objection  will  be  :  "that  my  parallel  does  not  hold,  because  the 
kind  man  is  not  omnipotent,  while  God  is.  God  could  not  con- 
sistently speak  thus,  while  withholding  alms,  because  he  could 
create  the  additional  money  at  will."  This  is  more  ready  than 
solid.  It  assumes  that  God's  omniscence  cannot  see  any 
ground,  save  the  lack  of  physical  ability  or  power,  why  it  may 
not  be  best  to  refrain  from  creating  the  additional  money.  Let 
the  student  search  and  see  ;  he  will  find  that  this  preposterous 
and  presumptuous  assumption  is  the  implied  premise  of  the 
objection.  In  fact,  my  parallel  is  a  fair  one  in  the  main  point. 
This  benevolent  man  is  not  prevented  from  giving  the  alms,  by 
any  physical  compulsion.  If  he  diverts  a  part  of  the  money  in 
hand  from  the  creditor,  to  the  destitute  man,  the  creditor  will 
visit  no  penalty  on  him.  He  simply  feels  bound  by  his  con- 
science. That  is,  the  superior  principles  of  reason  and  morality 
are  regulative  of  his  action,  counterpoising  the  amiable  but  less 
imperative  principle  of  sympathy,  in  this  case.  Yet  the  verbal 
expression  of  sympathy  in  this  case  may  be  natural,  sincere,  and 
proper.  God  is  not  restrained  by  lack  of  physical  omnipotence 
from  creating  on  the  spot  the  additional  money  for  the  alms  ; 
but  He  may  be  actually  restrained  by  some  consideration 
known  to  His  omniscience,  which  shows  that  it  is  not  on  the 
whole  best  to  resort  to  the  expedient  of  creating  the  money  for 
the  alms,  and  that  rational  consideration  may  be  just  as  decis- 
ive in  an  all-wise  mind,  and  properly  as  decisive,  as  a  conscious 
impotency  to  create  money  in  a  man's. 

This  view  is  so  important  here,  and  will  be  found  so  valu- 
The  Motive  not  Ex-    ^t)le  in  another  place,  that  I  beg  leave  to  give 
ecuted  may    be    Ex-    it  farther  illustration.     It  is  related  that  the 
P^^^^^*^"  great  Washington,  when  he  signed  the  death- 

warrant  of  the  amiable  but  misguided  Andre,  declared  his  pro- 
found grief  and  sympathy.  Let  us  suppose  a  captious  invader 
present,  and  criticising  Washington's  declaration  thus  :  "  You 
are  by  law  of  the  rebel  congress,  commander-in-chief  You 
have  absolute  power  here.  If  you  felt  any  of  the  generous 
sorrow  you  pretend,  you  would  have  thrown  that  pen  into  the 
fire,  instead  of  using  it  to  write  the  fatal  words.  The  fact  you 
do  the  latter  proves  that  you  have  not  a  shade  of  sympathy, 
and  those  declarations  are  sheer  hypocrisy."  It  is  easy  to  see 
how  impudent  and  absurd  this  charge  would  be.  Physically, 
Washington  had  full  license,  and  muscular  power,  to  throw  the 
pen  into  the  fire.  But  he  was  rationally  restrained  from  doing 
so,  by  motives  of  righteousness  and  patriotism,  which  were 
properly  as  decisive  as  any  physical  cause.  Now,  will  the 
objector  still  urge,  that  with  God  it  would  have  been  different, 


532  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

in  this  case  ;  because  His  omnipotence  might  have  enabled  Him 
to  overrule,  in  all  souls,  British  and  Americans,  all  inconven- 
ient results  that  could  flow  from  the  impunity  of  a  spy  caught 
hi  flagrante  delicto ;  and  that  so,  God  could  not  give  any 
expression  to  the  infinite  benevolence  of  His  nature,  and  yet 
sign  the  death-warrant,  without  hypocrisy  ?  The  audacity  of 
this  sophism  is  little  less  than  the  other.  How  obvious  is  the 
reply  :  That  as  in  the  one  case,  though  Washington  was  in  pos- 
session of  the  muscular  ability,  and  also  of  an  absolute  license, 
to  burn  the  death-warrant,  if  he  chose ;  and  yet  his  wisdom  and 
virtue  showed  him  decisive  motives  which  rationally  restrained 
him  from  it ;  so  God  may  have  full  sovereignty  and  omnipo- 
tence to  change  the  heart  of  the  sinner  whose  ruin  He  compas- 
sionates, and  yet  be  rationally  restrained  from  doing  it,  by 
some  decisive  motives  seen  in  His  omniscience.  What  is  it, 
but  logical  arrogance  run  mad,  for  a  puny  creature  to  assume 
to  say,  that  the  infinite  intelligence  of  God  may  not  see,  amidst 
the  innumerable  affairs  and  relations  of  a  universal  government 
stretching  from  creation  to  eternity,  such  decisive  considera- 
tions ? 

The  great  advantage  of  this  view  is,  that  it  enables  us  to 

Scriptures  Ascribe  to    receive,  in  their  obvious  sense,  those  precious 
God   Pity   Towards    declarations  of  Scripture,  which  declare  the 

^^^'  pity  of  God  towards  even  lost  sinners.     The 

glory  of  these  representations  is,  that  they  show  us  God's 
benevolence  as  an  infinite  attribute,  like  all  His  other  perfec- 
tions. Even  where  it  is  rationally  restrained,  it  exists.  The 
fact  that  there  is  a  lost  order  of  angels,  and  that  there  are  per- 
sons in  our  guilty  race,  who  are  objects  of  God's  decree  of  pre- 
terition,  does  not  arise  from  any  stint  or  failure  of  this  infinite 
benevolence.  It  is  as  infinite,  viewed  as  it  qualifies  God's 
nature  only,  as  though  He  had  given  expression  to  it  in  the  sal- 
vation of  all  the  devils  and  lost  men.  We  can  now  receive, 
without  any  abatement,  such  blessed  declarations  as  Ps.  Ixxxi  : 
13  ;  Ezek.  xviii  :  32  ;  Luke  xix  :  41,  42.  We  have  no  occasion 
for  such  questionable,  and  even  perilous  exegesis,  as  even  Cal- 
vin and  Turrettin  feel  themselves  constrained  to  apply  to 
the  last.  Afraid  lest  God's  principle  of  compassion  (not  pur- 
pose of  rescue),  towards  sinners  non-elect,  should  find  any 
expression,  and  thus  mar  the  symmetry  of  their  logic,  they  say 
that  it  was  not  Messiah  the  God-man  and  INIediator,  who  wept 
over  reprobate  Jerusalem  ;  but  only  the  humanity  of  Jesus,  our 
pattern.  I  ask  :  Is  it  competent  to  a  mere  humanity  to  say  : 
"  How  often  would  I  have  gathered  your  children  ?  "  And  to 
pronounce  a  final  doom,  "  Your  house  is  left  unto  you  deso- 
late ?  "  The  Calvinist  should  have  paused,  when  he  found  him- 
self wresting  these  Scriptures  from  the  same  point  of  view 
adopted  by  the  ultra-Arminian.  But  this  is  not  the  first  time 
we  have  seen  "  extremes  meet."     Thus  argues  the  Arminian  : 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  533 

*'  Since  God  is  sovereign  and  omnipotent,  if  He  has  a  pro- 
pension,  He  indulges  it,  of  course,  in  volition  and  action. 
Therefore,  as  He  declares  He  had  a  propension  of  pity 
towards  contumacious  Israel,  I  conclude  that  He  also  had  a 
volition  to  redeem  them,  and  that  He  did  whatever  omnipo- 
tence could  do,  against  the  obstinate  contingency  of  their 
wills.  Here  then,  I  find  the  bulwark  of  my  doctrine,  that 
even  omnipotence  cannot  certainly  determine  a  free  will." 
And  thus  argues  the  ultra-Calvinist :  "  Since  God  is  sov- 
ereign and  omnipotent,  if  He  has  any  propension.  He  in- 
dulges it,  of  course,  in  volition  and  action.  But  if  He  had 
willed  to  convert  reprobate  Israel,  He  would  infallibly  have  suc- 
ceeded. Therefore  He  never  had  any  propension  of  pity  at  all 
towards  them."  And  so  this  reasoner  sets  himself  to  explain 
away,  by  unscrupulous  exegesis,  the  most  precious  revelations 
of  God's  nature  !  Should  not  this  fact,  that  two  opposite  con- 
clusions are  thus  drawn  from  the  same  premises,  have  suggested 
error  in  the  premises  ?  And  the  error  of  both  extremists  is 
just  here.  It  is  not  true  that  if  God  has  an  active  principle 
looking  towards  a  given  object,  He  will  always  express  it  in 
volition  and  action.  This,  as  I  have  shown,  is  no  more  true  of 
God,  than  of  a  righteous  and  wise  man.  And  as  the  good 
man,  who  was  touched  with  a  case  of  destitution,  and  yet  deter- 
mined that  it  was  his  duty  not  to  use  the  money  he  had  in  giv- 
ing alms,  might  consistently  express  what  he  truly  felt  of  pity, 
by  a  kind  word  ;  so  God  consistently  reveals  the  principle  of 
compassion  as  to  those  whom,  for  wise  reasons.  He  is  deter- 
mined not  to  save.  We  know  that  God's  omnipotence  surely 
accomplishes  every  purpose  of  His  grace.  Hence,  we  know 
that  He  did  not  purposely  design  Christ's  sacrifice  to  effect  the 
redemption  of  any  others  than  the  elect.  But  we  hold  it  per- 
fectly consistent  with  this  truth,  that  the  expiation  of  Christ  for 
sin — expiation  of  infinite  value  and  universal  fitness — should  be 
held  forth  to  the  whole  world,  elect  and  non-elect,  as  a  mani- 
festation of  the  benevolence  of  God's  nature.  God  here  ex- 
hibits a  provision,  which  is  so  related  to  the  sin  of  the  race, 
that  by  it,  all  those  obstacles  to  every  sinner's  return  to  his 
love,  which  his  guilt  and  the  law  presents,  are  ready  to  be  taken 
out  of  the  way.  But  in  every  sinner,  another  class  of  obsta- 
cles exists ;  those,  namely,  arising  out  of  the  sinner's  own 
depraved  will.  As  to  the  elect,  God  takes  these  obstacles  also 
out  of  the  way,  by  His  omnipotent  calling,  in  pursuance  of  the 
covenant  of  redemption  made  with,  and  fulfilled  for  them  by, 
their  Mediator.  As  to  the  non-elect,  God  has  judged  it  best  not 
to  take  this  class  of  obstacles  out  of  the  way  ;  the  men  therefore 
go  on  to  indulge  their  own  will  in  neglecting  or  rejecting  Christ. 
But  it  will  be  objected:    If  God  foreknew  that  non-elect 

^, .    ^.      c  1    J       iTien    would    do   this ;    and   also    knew  that 
Objections  Solved.         .     .  .  .  '     ,  i  i     •    r  i 

their  neglect   of  gospel-mercy  would    inial- 


534  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

libly  aggravate  their  doom  in  the  end,  (all  of  which  I  admit), 
then  that  gospel  was  no  expression  of  benevolence  to  them 
at  all.  I  reply,  first;  the  offer  was  a  blessing  in  itself; 
these  sinners  felt  it  so  in  their  serious  moments  ;  and  surely 
its  nature  as  a  kindness  is  not  reversed  by  the  circumstance 
that  they  pervert  it;  though  that  be  foreseen.  Second;  God 
accompanies  the  offer  with  hearty  entreaties  to  them  not  thus 
to  abuse  it.  Third  ;  His  benevolence  is  cleared  in  the  view  of 
all  other  beings,  though  the  perv^erse  objects  do  rob  themselves 
of  the  permanent  benefit.  And  this  introduces  the  other  cavil: 
That  such  a  dispensation  towards  non-elect  sinners  is  utterly 
futile,  and  so,  unworthy  of  God's  wisdom.  I  reply  :  It  is  not 
futile  ;  because  it  secures  actual  results  both  to  non-elect  men, 
to  God  and  to  the  saved.  To  the  first,  it  secures  many  temporal 
restraints  and  blessings  in  this  life,  the  secular  ones  of  which, 
at  least,  the  sinner  esteems  as  very  solid  benefits ;  and  also  a 
sincere  offer  of  eternal  life,  which  he,  and  not  God,  disappoints. 
To  God,  this  dispensation  secures  great  revenue  of  glory,  both 
for  His  kindness  towards  contumacious  enemies,  and  His  clear 
justice  in  the  final  punishment.  To  other  holy  creatures  it 
brings  not  only  this  new  revelation  of  God's  glory,  but  a  new 
apprehension  of  the  obstinacy  and  malignity  of  sin  as  a  spiri- 
tual evil. 

Some  seem  to  recoil  from  the  natural  view  which  presents 
God,  like  other  wise  Agents,  as  planning  to  gain  several  ends, 
one  primary  and  others  subordinate,  by  the  same  set  of 
actions.  They  fear  that  if  they  admit  this,  they  will  be  entrap- 
ped into  an  ascription  of  uncertainty,  vacillation  and  change  to 
God's  purpose.  This  consequence  does  not  at  all  follow,  as  to 
Him.  It  might  follow  as  to  a  finite  man  pursuing  alternative 
purposes.  For  instance,  a  general  might  order  his  subordinate 
to  make  a  seeming  attack  in  force  on  a  given  point  of  his 
enemy's  position.  The  general  might  say  to  himself:  "  I  will 
make  this  attack  either  a  feint,  (while  I  make  my  real  attack 
elsewhere),  or,  if  the  enemy  seem  weak  there,  my  real,  main 
attack."  This,  of  course,  implies  some  uncertainty  in  his  fore- 
knowledge ;  and  if  the  feint  is  turned  into  his  main  attack,  the 
last  purpose  must  date  in  his  mind  from  some  moment  after  the 
feint  began.  Such  doubt  and  mutation  must  not  be  imputed  to 
God.  Hence  I  do  not  employ  the  phrase  "  alternative  objects  " 
of  His  planning ;  as  it  might  be  misunderstood.  We  "cannot  find 
out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection."  But  it  is  certain,  that  He, 
when  acting  on  finite  creatures,  and  for  the  instruction  of  finite 
minds,  may  and  does  pursue,  in  one  train  of  His  dealings,  a  plu- 
rality of  ends,  of  which  one  is  subordinated  to  another.  Thus 
God  consistently  makes  the  same  dispensation  first  a  manifest- 
ation of  the  glory  of  His  goodness,  and  then,  when  the  sinner 
has  perverted  it,  of  the  glory  of  His  justice.  He  is  not  disap- 
pointed, nor  does  He  change  His  secret  purpose.     The  muta- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  535 

tion  is  in  the  relation  of  the  creature  to  His  providence.     His 

glory  is,  that  seeing  the  end  from   the    beginning,  He  brings 

good  even  out  of  the  perverse  sinner's  evil. 

There  is,  perhaps,   no  Scripture  which  gives  so  thorough 

^, .     ^,  .  ,  and    comprehensive    an    explanation    of   the 

This    Christ  s    own     j      •  j  ii.         r  /^i-    •   i.>  -r 

Explanation.  design    and    results    of  Christ  s    sacrifice,  as 

Jno.  iii  :  16-19.  ^^  ^^Y  receive  important 
illustration  from  Matt,  xxii  :  4.  In  this  last  parable,  the  king 
sends  this  message  to  invited  guests  who,  he  foresees,  would 
reject  and  never  partake  the  feast.  "  My  oxen  and  my  fatlings 
are  killed  :  come,  for  all  things  are  now  ready."  They  alone 
were  unready.  I  have  already  stated  one  ground  for  rejecting 
that  interpretation  of  Jno.  iii  :  i6,  which  makes  "the  world" 
which  God  so  loved,  the  elect  world,  I  would  now,  in  conclu- 
sion, simply  indicate,  in  the  form  of  a  free  paraphrase,  the  line 
of  thought  developed  by  our  Redeemer,  trusting  that  the  ideas 
already  expounded  will  suffice,  with  the  coherency  and  con- 
sistency of  the  exposition,  to  prove  its  correctness. 

Verse  i6  :  Christ's  mission  to  make  expiation  for  sin  is  a 
manifestation  of  unspeakable  benevolence  to  the  whole  world, 
to  man  as  man  and  a  sinner,  yet  designed  specifically  to  result 
in  the  actual  salvation  of  believers.  Does  not  this  imply  that 
this  very  mission,  rejected  by  others,  will  become  the  occasion 
(not  cause)  of  perishing  even  more  surely  to  them  ?  It  does. 
Yet,  (verse  17,)  it  is  denied  that  this  vindicatory  result  was  the 
primary  design  of  Christ's  mission  :  and  the  initial  assertion  is 
again  repeated,  that  this  primary  design  was  to  manifest  God, 
in  Christ's  sacrifice,  as  compassionate  to  all.  How  then  is  the 
seeming  paradox  to  be  reconciled  ?  Not  by  retracting  either 
statement.  The  solution,  (verse  18,)  is  in  the  fact,  that  men,  in 
the  exercise  of  their  free  agency,  give  opposite  receptions  to 
this  mission.  To  those  who  accept  it  as  it  is  offered,  it  brings 
life.  To  those  who  choose  to  reject  it,  it  is  the  occasion  (not 
cause)  of  condemnation.  For,  (verse  19,)  the  true  cause  of  this 
perverted  result  is  the  evil  choice  of  the  unbelievers,  who  reject 
the  provision  offered  in  the  divine  benevolence,  from  a  wicked 
motive  ;  unwillingness  to  confess  and  forsake  their  sins.  The 
sum  of  the  matter  is  then  :  That  Christ's  mission  is,  to  the 
whole  race,  a  manifestation  of  God's  mercy.  To  believers  it  is 
means  of  salvation,  by  reason  of  that  effectual  calling  which 
Christ  had  expounded  in  the  previous  verses.  To  unbelievers 
it  becomes  a  subsequent  and  secondary  occasion  of  aggravated 
doom.  This  melancholy  perversion,  while  embraced  in  God's 
permissive  decree,  is  caused  by  their  own  contumacy.  The 
efficient  in  the  happy  result  is  effectual  calling :  the  efficient  in 
the  unhappy  result  is  man's  own  evil  will.  Yet  God's  benevo- 
lence is  cleared,  in  both  results.  Both  were,  of  course,  fore- 
seen by  Him,  and  included  in  His  purpose. 


LECTURE  XLIV. 


SYLLABUS, 

1.  What  results  flow  from  Christ's  sacrifice,   as    to    God's    glorj',   and     other 
Worlds  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu,  3,  and  4.  Symington  on  the  Atonement,  §  4.  Hill, 
bk.  iv,  ch.  6.     Hodge  on  Atonement,  pt.  ii. 

2.  Is  Christ's  Satisfaction  for  Believers  so  complete  as  to  leave  no  room  for  Pen- 
ance and  Purgatory  ?     State  the  Romish  doctrines,  with  their  Arguments  and  Replies. 

Turretdn,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  12.  Calvin,  Inst.  bk.  iii,  ch.  5.  Council  of  Trent. 
Session  xxv.  Bellarmine,  Controversia,  Vol.  ii,  p.  285.  &c.  Peter  Dens, 
Moral  Theo.,  Berg's  Abridg.,  p.  502.  Dick,  Lect.  81.  "Essays  on  Ro- 
manism," Presbyn.  Bd.,  Phila.  19.  Mosheim,  Com.  de  Reb.  Chr.  ante  Con- 
stantinum.  Vol.  ii,  p^  38.  Neander,  Ch.  Hist.  Vol.  i,  p.  217,  &c.,  ii,  p.  675, 
Torrey. 

T2EFORE  I  proceed  to  that  which  is  to  be  the  chief  topic  of 
this  lecture,  the  exchision  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  pen- 
ance and  purgatory  by  the  completeness  of 
tion 'rifherl^"^"'"^"    Christ's  satisfaction,  let  us  advert  for  a  mo- 
ment to  the  point  raised  at  the  close  of  the 
last  lecture.     This    was   concerning   the    effects    of  the  atone- 
ment on  the  glory  of  God,  and  creatures   other  than  the  elect. 
The  Scriptures  tell  us  that  Christ  "  took  not  on  Him  the 
Angels  not  Redeemed   nature  of  angels."     This,  with  kindred  dec- 
by  Christ,  but  Instructed  larations,  assures  US  that  He  is  not  the  Medi- 
anc  c  eere  ,  ^^^^  ^^   angels ;    as  they  need  no   express 

mediation.  Yet  many  passages  show  that  they  have  a  certain 
interest  in  the  work  of  Christ.  Examine  i  Pet.  1:12;  Eph.  i  : 
10  ;  Col.  i  :  20  ;  Eph.  iii  :  10  ;  Phil,  ii  :  10  ;  Heb.  i  :  6.  Now, 
we  should  greatly  err,  if,  for  instance,  we  understood  such  a 
passage  as  Col.  i  :  20,  as  teaching  that  the  Messiah  has  "  recon- 
ciled "  any  angels  to  God,  by  suffering  penal  satisfaction  and 
making  intercession  for  thern.  For  the  elect  angels  never  had 
any  sins  to  suffer  for ;  and  we  are  assured  that  Satan  and  his 
angels  will  never  be  reconciled  to  God.  What,  then,  is  the 
concern  of  the  heavenly  orders,  with  Christ's  mediatorial  work  ? 
First,  the  Scriptures  abundantly  teach  us  that  this  work 
enhances  the  declarative  glory  of  God.  The 
Se^n^'atdS^bMn^gi^"  Mediator  is  proposed  to  us  and  to  all  crea- 
tures  likewise,  as  "  the  image  of  the  invisi- 
ble God,"  "  the  brightness  of  His  glory  and  the  express  image 
of  His  person."  But  Christ's  mission  and  character  are  those 
of  ineffable  benevolence,  pity,  love,  and  tenderness ;  as  well  as 
of  purity,  devotion,  magnanimity,  and  righteousness.  Hence, 
all  creatures  receive,  in  His  incarnation  and  work,  a  revelation 
of  God's  character  peculiarly  dear  to  them  ;  to  the  holy,  as 
truly  as  the  unholy.  The  holy  angels  now  know,  love,  trust, 
and  serve  their  Jehovah,  as  they  would  not  have  done,  had  they 
536 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  537 

not  learned  better  these  lovely  perfections,  in  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ.  God,  in  taking  on  Him  the  nature  of  one 
creature,  man,  has  come  nearer  to  all  creatures,  and  opened  up 
new  channels  of  communion  with  them.  All  the  creatures  had 
important  things  in  common,  a  dependent  nature,  intellect,  con- 
science and  will,  responsibility,  and  an  immortal  destiny  to  win 
or  lose.  God,  in  uniting  Himself  to  one  nature,  has,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  united  Himself  to  the  whole  class  ;  the  condescen- 
sion does  not  avail  man  alone,  but  brings  God  nearer  to  all 
orders.  Thus,  humanity  appears  to  be  a  kind  of  iiex7is,  or 
point  of  contact  between  God  and  all  the  holy  creatures.  And 
thus,  it  appears  that  the  extent  and  grandeur  of  the  beneficent 
results  of  the  incarnation  are  not  to  be  measured  by  the  com- 
parative smallness  of  the  earth  and  man  amidst  the  other  parts 
of  creation.  It  appears  how  it  may  be  most  worthy  of  God,  to 
have  selected  the  most  insignificant  of  His  rational  creatures,  as 
well  as  the  ones  who  were  guilty,  for  this  hypostatic  union  with 
Himself;  because  thereby  the  designed  condescension  to,  and 
unification  of  all  creatures,  in  heavenly  communion  and  love, 
would  be  more  complete  and  glorious.  The  lowest  nature  best 
answered  the  purposes.  When  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Fry  was  moved 
by  God's  grace  to  manifest  the  beauty  of  Christian  philanthropy, 
she  went  to  the  female  felons  in  Newgate.  By  going  to  the 
very  bottom  of  the  scale  of  moral  degradation  she  displayed  a 
love  marked  by  perfect  and  entire  beauty  and  condescension. 
Her  love  was  shown  to  be  the  highest,  because  its  objects  were 
the  lowest.  This  view  of  our  Redeemer's  choice  of  objects 
also  gives  the  best  answer  to  the  cavil  discussed  in  Dr.  Chal- 
mers' "Astronomical  Discourses."  It  had  been  objected,  that 
the  Christian  scheme  could  only  seem  probable  in  connection 
with  the  old  Ptolemaic  astronomy,  which  made  the  earth  the 
centre  of  the  whole  heavens.  For,  when  once  it  was  found  that 
this  earth  was  a  very  small  planet  in  our  system,  it  would  appear 
very  absurd,  that  the  Lord  of  all  this  host  of  worlds  should  die 
for  a  little  speck  among  them.  The  point  of  Dr.  Chalmers' 
reply  was  to  show,  that  to  God's  immensity,  no  world  is  really 
great,  and  all  are  infinitesimally  small.  The  more  complete 
answer  is  that  which  I  have  suggested  above. 

It  is  also  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  coupled  with 
His  proper  divinity,  which  enables  us  to  complete  our  "  theodicy" 
of  the  permission  of  evil.  In  the  end  of  Lect.  v  :  the  dimen- 
sions of  this  fearful  question  :  Why  a  holy,  sovereign,  omnipo- 
tent and  benevolent  God  should  permit  the  natural  and  moral 
evil,  repugnant  to  His  pure  and  good  nature,  to  enter  His 
dominions,  were  intimated,  and  also  the  insufficiency  of  the 
Pelagian,  and  the  optimistic  replies.  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
which  gives  the  humble  believer,  not  a  solution,  but  a  satisfying 
reply.  There  must  have  been  a  reason,  and  a  good  one,  and  it 
must  have  been  one  implying  no  stint  or  defect  of  God's  holi- 


538 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


ness  or  benevolence.  For  had  there  been  in  God  the  least 
defect  of  either,  he  certainly  would  never  have  found  it  in  His 
heart  to  send  His  infinite  Son,  more  great  and  important  than 
all  worlds,  to  redeem  any  one.  Note,  that  the  Unitarian,  who 
makes  Christ  a  creature,  cannot  use  this  theodicy !  The  same 
argument  shows,  that  the  secret  reason  for  Esau's  preterition 
must  have  been  both  right  and  benevolent :  because  Christ's 
sacrifice  for  sinful  Jacob  alone  demonstrates  a  nature  of  infinite 
goodness. 

But  God  not  only  enhances  the  manifestation  of  His 
^   ,  attribute   of  benevolence,  by  the  incarnation 

His  Attributes.  ^f  the  Son.     All  His  other  moral  perfections 

and  His  wisdom  are  equally  exalted.  His 
justice,  impartiality,  holiness,  and  determination  to  punish 
guilt,  appear  far  more  in  Christ's  penal  sufferings,  than  in  the 
damnation  of  Satan  and  of  wicked  men.  For  they  being  His 
mere  creatures,  easily  replaced  by  His  creative  power,  insig- 
nificant to  His  well  being,  and  personally  injurious  to  His  rights 
and  character,  it  was  easy  and  natural  to  punish  them  as  they 
deserve.  Cavilling  spirits  might  say,  with  a  show  of  plausi- 
bility, that  resentment  alone,  rather  than  pure  justice  and  holi- 
ness, may  have  prompted  Him  to  their  doom.  But  when  the 
Father  proceeds,  with  equal  inflexibility,  to  exact  the  penalty  of 
His  own  Son,  a  being  infinitely  glorious,  united  by  identity  of 
nature  and  eternal  love  to  the  Judge,  characterized  personally 
by  infinite  moral  loveliness,  only  the  more  lovely  by  this  act  of 
splendid  devotion,  and  only  concerned  by  voluntary  substitu- 
tion with  the  guilt  of  sinners  ;  there  is  an  exhibition  of  unques- 
tionable and  pure  justice,  impossible  to  be  carried  further.  So 
the  faithfulness  of  God  to  His  covenants  is  displayed  in  the 
most  wondrous  and  exalted  degree.  When  God's  truth  finds 
such  a  manifestation  in  His  threats,  it  appears  as  the  equally 
infallible  ground  of  our  trust  in  His  promises.  Now,  as  these 
qualities  are  the  basis  of  the  hope  of  the  ransomed  sinners,  so 
they  are  the  source  of  the  trust  and  confidence  of  all  the 
heavenly  orders.  Their  bliss  is  not  purchased  by  the  Cross ; 
but  it  reposes  on  the  divine  perfections  which  are  displayed  on 
the  Cross. 

The  general  idea  of  a  Purgatory,  that  is,  of  temporary 
2.  Pumatorial  Ideas  penal  and  purging  pains  beyond  the  grave, 
Cotiimon  to  all  Praise  to  be  followed  by  eternal  blessedness,  is  the 
Religions.  common  characteristic  of  all  false  religions. 

It  seems  to  be  adopted  in  some  form,  by  all  minds  not  cor- 
rected by  revelation  ;  by  Pythagoreans,  Platonists,  the  Jewish 
Mishnical  doctors,  (ii  Mac.  ii  :  12  ;  Josephus  and  Philo),  by  the 
Latins  from  the  Greeks,  (Virgil,  yEneid  6th.  Ergo  cxcrcciitiir 
panis  vctcrunique  inaloriini  siipplicia  expend imt)  by  the  Moham- 
medans, the  Brahmins,  &c.  There  are  two  very  strong  and 
natural  sources  for  this  tendency :    first  the  prompting  of  our 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  539 

affections  to  follow  our  dead  friends  with  labours  for  their 
benefit  and  hope ;  and  second,  the  obstinate  reluctance  of  a 
heart  at  once  guilty  and  in  love  with  sin,  to  be  shut  up  between 
the  sharp  alternatives  of  present  repentance,  or  final  damnation. 
The  idea  of  a  purgatory  offers  a  third  alternative  by  which  the 
deceitful  heart  may  for  a  time  solace  itself  in  sin. 

The  idea  came  early  into  the  Christian  Church,  through 
two  channels  ;  a  Jewish,  through  their  per- 
intodrEady^SS  version  of  the  doctrine  of  Hades,  and  a 
Platonic,  through  Origen's  restorationism. 
The  extension  of  a  final  restoration  to  all  the  wicked,  and  even 
to  Satan,  was,  however,  regarded  by  the  bulk  of  the  Church  as 
an  extravagance  of  Origen.  Thus,  we  are  told,  prayers  for  the 
dead  appear  in  the  earliest  liturgies,  as  Basil's,  and  in  the  cur- 
rent of  the  Fathers,  from  the  "  Apostolic  constitutions,"  so 
called,  and  the  Pseudo  Dyonisius,  downward.  When  the 
priestly  conception  of  the  Christian  ministry  was  intruded 
(which  may  be  traced  as  early  as  A.  D.  200),  the  sacrament  of 
the  mass  began  to  be  regarded  as  a  sacrifice,  which  is  evinced 
by  their  giving  it  to  infants ;  and  soon  the  idea  was  borrowed, 
that  it  availed  for  the  dead.  Thus,  says  Calvin,  in  his  Insti- 
tutes, the  custom  of  praying  for  the  dead  had  prevailed  almost 
universally  in  the  Latin  Church  for  1300  years  before  his  time. 
Augustine,  even,  tolerated  it.  Aerius,  the  so-called  heretic, 
seems  to  have  been  the  only  noted  disentient  in  the  early  ages. 
But  prayers  for  the  dead  imply  that  their  state  is  not  yet  fixed, 
nor  yet  perfectly  blessed,  and  that  it  may  be  amended.  The 
fully  developed  doctrine  was  embodied  in  the  Romish  creed,  by 
the  Councils  of  Florence  and  Lyons  2nd. 

The  student  may  find  a  very  express  and  full  statement  of 
Doctrine  Stated  Pur-  ^^^^  Roman  doctrine,  in  the  25th  Session  of 
gatoiy  the  Comple-  the  Council  of  Trent.  To  understand  it,  and 
ment  of  Penance.  ^|^g  distinction  of  the  Reat?/s  pcencs,  and  Rea- 

tus  CulpcB,  on  which  it  is  founded,  its  development  out  of  the 
simple  usages  of  the  primitive  Church  about  penitents  must  be 
explained.  When  a  Church-member  had  scandalized  the 
Church,  especially  if  it  was  by  idolatry,  he  was  required,  after 
his  repentance,  to  undergo  a  strict  penance.  This  was  con- 
sidered as  satisfaction  made  to  the  wounded  credit  of  the 
Brotherhood.  Out  of  this  simple  idea  grew  the  distinction 
between  penitential,  and  theological,  temporal,  and  spiritual 
guilt.  The  latter,  they  suppose,  is  expiated  by  Christ's  divine 
blood.  For  the  former,  the  believer  must  make  satisfaction 
himself,  partly  in  the  sacrament  of  penance  and  self-mortifica- 
tions, the  remainder  in  purgatory.  The  two  classes  of  punish- 
ment are,  therefore,  complementary  to  each  other :  the  more 
of  one  is  paid,  the  less  of  the  other  remains  to  be  demanded. 
Venial  sins  incur  only  the  reatwn  pcencB  ;  mortal  sins  carry 
both   forms  of  guilt.     Baptism,  the  Church  holds,  removes  all 


540  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

previous  guilt — original  and  actual ;  so  that  were  the  infant  to 

die  immediately  after  its  baptism,  it  would  incur  neither  hell 

nor  purgatory.     All  other  believers,  including  even  the  highest 

clergy,  even   Popes,    except  the  Christian   martyrs,  must   go  to 

purgatory,    for  a  time   longer    or  shorter,    to  pay  the   reatiim 

pcencB  of  their  sins  after  baptism.      The  baptism  of  fire,  which 

the  martyr  receives   is,   in  his  case,  a  sufficient  purgation,  and 

substitutes  the  purgatorial  sufferings. 

The  arguments  of  Rome  on  this  subject  may  be  found  so 

T3  „      .    ,      .  fully  and  learnedly  stated  by  Cardinal  Bellar- 

-bellarmine  s     Argu-         •  i  ^      ^  ■  i--ii-7j-, 

ments.  mme,  {Controversia  vol.  n,   bk.   i,  de  Ptirga- 

torio    p.    285,     &c.,)     that    nothing    can    be 

added  after  him.     He  ranks  his  arguments  under  three  heads — 

from  Scriptures,  from  the  Fathers,  from  Reason, 

From  the  Apocrypha  is  quoted  2  Mac.  12th,  which  states 
P  that  Judas    Mac.  sent    to  Jerusalem    12,000 

and  Old  Testament.  ^  drachmae,  to  be  expended  in  sacrifices  for 
the  dead,  and  adds  the  sentiment :  "  There- 
fore it  is  holy  and  wholesome  to  pray  for  the  dead,  that  they 
may  be  loosed  from  their  sins."  The  answer  is  :  the  book  is 
not  canonical ;  nor  is  the  rendering  clear.  The  same  answer 
may  be  made  to  the  citation  from  Tobit  iv,  which  recommends 
the  giving  of  a  sepulchral  feast  to  the  pious  poor,  in  order  that 
they  may  pray  for  the  souls  of  the  departed.  From  the  Scrip- 
tures, Malachi  iii :  2,  3,  is  also  quoted,  and  apphed  to  Christ's 
second  coming  instead  of  His  first.  At  the  final  day,  they  say, 
a  purgatorial  influence  will  be  very  briefly  exerted  by  the  final 
conflagration,  on  the  souls  of  those  then  living.  There,  they 
claim,  the  principle  of  a  purgatory  is  granted.  The  answer  is, 
that  the  New  Testament  proves  that  this  and  similar  passages 
relate  to  Christ's  first  coming.  (John  i  :  23  ;  Luke  i  :  17;  iii :  4, 
or  iii  :  16).  And  the  trying  fire  is  the  searching  and  judgment  of 
God's  convincing  Spirit,  then  peculiarly  poured  out.  To  see 
how  hardly  bestead  they  are  for  Scriptural  proof,  you  may  note 
how  they  quote  i  Sam.  xxxi :  13 ;  2  Sam.  i  :  12  ;  iii  :  35  ;  Gen. 
1:25;  Ps.  Ixvi  :  1 2  ;  Isa.  iv  :  4  ;  ix  :  18;  Micah.  vii  :  8 ;  Zech. 
ix  :  II.  It  is  only  by  some  preposterous  apphcation  of  the 
Fathers,  or  mistranslation  of  the  Vulgate,  that  these  passages 
seem  to  have  any  reference  to  purgatory. 

From  the  New  Testament  are  quoted  the  following  :    Matt. 

„    ^  „        ,    ^        xii  :  31,   32,    where,  it    is  claimed,  there  is  a 
Texts  From  the Gos-        i^-     •        i-      i.-  ^1     ^  •  '       ^        . 

pels.  plain  implication   that  some  sins  are  forgiven 

in  the  other  world.  But  first,  the  assertion  of 
a  proposition  does  not  prove  its  converse.  Second,  if  the 
passage  implies  that  any  sins  are  pardonable  after  death,  it 
implies  that  they  are  such  as  blasphemy  against  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  But  Rome  herself  makes  these  mortal  sins.  Third, 
our  Saviour's  words  are  simply  an  amplification  of  the  idea  that 
such  sin  "  hath  never  forgiveness ;"  as  in  fact  He  expresses  it  in 


OF    LECTURES     IN    THEOLOGY.  54I 

Mark  iii  :  12,  the  parallel  passage.  Last,  the  phrase  auov 
ps/Jxir^,  never  means  anything  else  than  either  the  Christian 
dispensation  as  contrasted  with  the  Mosaic  or  else  the  time 
after  the  judgment. 

Bellarmine  also  cites   i.  Cor.  iii  :  10-15,   spying,  "the  foun- 
dation is  Christ,  the  founders  are  the   apos- 

Tr^^°'VV  ^°'  ^^'^  ties,  the  good  builders  are  Catholic  clergy, 
Lxpounded.  .'  »  11.1  1 

their  successors ;  the  gold,  silver,  and  prec- 
ious stones,  are  true  Catholic  doctrine  ;  the  '  wood,  hay,  and 
stubble,'  are  erroneous,  but  not  damnably  heretical  doctrines : 
and  the  inference  is,  that  these  heedless  Catholic  teachers  shall 
be  punished  in  purgatory  for  their  careless  teaching."  But  if 
clergymen  need  a  purgatory,  the  principle  is  established. 
Others  reach  the  same  conclusion  more  directly.  Now,  the 
true  exposition  of  this  passage,  very  strangely  overlooked  by 
the  most  of  the  Protestants,  makes  the  '  gold,  silver,  and  prec- 
ious stones,'  true  converts  or  genuine  Christians  united  to  the 
Church,  which  Christ  has  founded ;  while  the  '  wood,  hay,  and 
stubble,'  are  spurious  professors.  The  proof  is  in  the  coher- 
ency of  this  sense  with  the  whole  passage  ;  in  the  context,  v. 
16,  and  in  Is.  xxviii  :  16  ;  i  Pet.  ii  :  4-6.  Next,  "the  day" 
which  shall  try  every  man's  work,  what  sort  it  is,  is  evidently 
the  judgment  day.  Compare  i  Cor.  iv  :  3,  where  man's  judgment 
is,  literally,  "  man's  day."  But  the  judgment  day  is  subsequent 
to  all  purgatory,  according  to  Rome  herself.  The  fire  which 
is  to  try  each  man's  work  is  figurative,  the  divine  judgment  and 
Spirit.  Compare  Heb.  xii  :  29.  And  to  suppose  that  the  fire 
in  V.  15  is  purgatorial  fire  implies  a  change  of  sense ;  for  the 
trial  is  not  by  literal  fire,  as  the  Romanists  make  purgatory  to 
be,  but  figuratively;  ouzm:^  d»-. 

From  Matt,  v  :  25,  26,  it  is  inferred   that  the    debtor  may 

pay  divine  justice  the  last  farthing,  and  "  come 

out."  This  is  not  implied :  if  the  debt  is 
10,000  talents,  and  he  has  nothing  to  pay,  he  will  never  come 
out.  See  Matt,  xviii  :  24,  25.  Matt,  v  :  22,  is  also  quoted,  as 
implying  different  degrees  of  punishment ;  but  if  all  are  sent 
together  to  an  eternal  hell,  no  difference  can  be  made.  We 
reply,  this  does  not  follow,  for  all  infinites  are  not  equal.  Their 
citations  of  i  Cor.  xv  :  29,  and  Phil,  ii  :  10,  need  scarcely  be 
argued. 

The  opinions  of  the  Fathers  we  easily  set  aside  by  denying 
the  Church's  infallibility. 

Bellarmine's  arguments  from  reason  are  four.     First :  Some 

sins  are  venial,  and  since  they  do  not  deserve 
Venial^si^^"*^    ^°'^    infinite  punishment,  a  just  God   must  punish 

them  temporally.  The  answer  is,  that  the 
Bible  knows  no  venial  sins.  Some  are,  undoubtedly,  less 
guilty  than  others.  But  God  will  know  how  to  apportion 
their  just  penalties,  without  a  purgatory. 


542  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Second :    This  acute  polemic  argues,  that  the  satisfaction 

.  ^    ,  of   Christ    does    not  take    off    believers     all 

Argument     from  ^  ^     ,  .,  ,  . 

Nature  of  Christ's  lorms  ot  the  guut  and   consequences   oi  sin: 

Satisfaction,  and  Chris-  for   God    chastises   all   of    them    by   bodily 

tians'  Afflictions.  ^^^^^^  ^^^  ^^  ^^^^  ^^  j^^^  ^^  affliction.    Nor 

is  it  worth  while  for  the  Protestants  to  endeavor  to  evade  this, 
by  saying  that  these  chastisements  are  merely  disciplinary. 
For  they  are  of  the  nature  of  other  penal  evils ;  they  are  a 
part  of  the  curse ;  they  are  notoriously  the  consequences 
of  sins;  the  paternal  love  of  God  would  never  lead  Him 
to  use  such  means  for  promoting  the  glorification  of  sinless  crea- 
tures. And  that  they  are  actually  penal  is  proved  by  two 
cases — that  of  David,  2  Sam.  xii  :  14,  where  God  thus  explains 
David's  bereavement  of  his  child  by  Bathsheba  ;  and  that  of  the 
baptized,  elect  infant,  suffering  and  dying  in  "  infancy."  For 
there  is  an  heir  of  redemption  ;  yet  it  suffers  the  curse  ;  and 
the  Protestant  cannot  explain  it  as  merely  disciplinary,  because 
the  infantile  sufferer  cannot  understand,  and,  therefore,  cannot 
profit  by  its  own  pangs.  And  indeed,  suggests  Bellarmine, 
here  is  seen  the  folly  of  Protestants,  in  dragging  those  texts 
into  this  question,  which  they  say,  teach  that  Christ's  atonement 
is  an  absolute  satisfaction  for  all  guilt,  such  as  Rom.  x  :  4:  viii  : 
I ;  Ps.  ciii  :  12-14;  Heb.  vii  :  25  ;  x  :  14.  For  if  these  texts 
be  taken  in  the  Protestant  sense,  then  they  are  incompatible 
with  the  chastisements  and  deaths  of  justified  persons,  which 
are  such  stubborn  facts.  How  does  the  Protestant  reconcile 
them?  Why,  he  has  to  resort  to  that  definition  of  vicarious 
satisfaction,  which  all  sound  Christians  advance ;  (as,  for 
instance,  to  solve  Socinian  objections,)  that  satisfaction  is  not 
a  legal  tender,  but  an  optional,  moral  equivalent  for  the  sinner's 
own  punishment.  Hence,  as  the  Protestant  himself  teaches, 
the  offering  of  even  an  adequate  equivalent  by  Christ  does  not 
compel  the  Father  to  release  the  debtor,  the  condemned  sinner, 
absolutely ;  as  in  pecuniary  debts,  the  offer  of  the  legal  tender 
compels  the  creditor  to  accept  it  and  release  his  debtor,  or  else 
lose  his  whole  claim  forever.  The  Father's  sovereign  option  is 
still  necessary  to  make  the  transaction  valid  ;  He  might  withhold 
it  if  He  chose.  Hence,  Protestants  themselves  infer  the  extent 
to  which,  and  the  terms  on  which,  the  vicarious  satisfaction  shall 
avail  for  the  sinner,  depend  on  the  actual  option  which  God  the 
P'ather  sees  fit  to  exercise.  Therefore,  it  is  all  folly  for  Protes- 
tants to  argue,  that  because  Christ  gives  us  a  perfect  vicarious 
righteousness,  therefore,  God  cannot  exact  from  the  believing 
sinner  any  penal  debt  whatever ;  it  is  not  theoretically  true ;  it 
is  not  true  in  fact.  How  much  of  the  penal  debt  God  remits, 
and  how  much  He  still  requires  of  the  believing  sinner,  must 
be  a  question  of  revealed  testimony  purely.  And  farther : 
Suppose  a  true  believer,  dying  before  he  has  gotten  his  fair 
share  of  penance  and  chastisements.     He  cannot  go  to  hell ;  he 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  543 

is  justified.  Must  there  not  be  a  purgatory,  where  his  unpaid 
debt  of  penitential  guilt  can  be  paid  ?  Else,  when  his  case  is 
compared  with  that  of  the  aged  and  ripened  saint,  who,  with  fewer 
venial  sins,  has  paid  a  larger  amount  of  penances  and  afflictions, 
there  is  flagrant  partiality. 

In  refuting  this  adroit  argument,  I  would  expressly  admit 

that  view  of  vicarious  satisfaction  advanced, 

e  utation.  ^^  ^1^^  ^^^^  ^^^^       j  would  expressly  accept 

the  appeal  to  the  revealed  testimony.  And  now,  setting  aside 
the  apocrypha,  and  the  Fathers,  as  of  no  authority,  I  plant 
myself  on  this  fact :  that  the  Scriptures  are  absolutely  silent,  as 
to  any  penitential  guilt  remaining  after  the  reahis  culpcB  is 
removed,  and  as  to  any  purgatorial  punishment.  Search  and 
see.  This  is  the  view  which  decided  Luther,  against  all  the 
prejudices  of  his  education.  Next,  the  chastisements  of  the 
justified  are  represented  by  God  as  only  discipHnary,  and  not 
punitive.  Heb.  xii  :  6-IO.  "  Whom  the  Lord  loveth"  *  * 
*  "  But  He  for  our  profit."  Nor  can  the  case  of  David,  or  of 
the  dying  elect  infant,  rebut  this  blessed  truth.  All  that  is 
said  by  Nathan  is,  that  one  reason  of  God  in  sending  the  chas 
tisement  of  the  infant's  death  was,  that  its  manner  of  birth  had 
given  the  wicked  great  occasion  to  blaspheme.  -Well,  this  end 
of  the  bereavement  is  after  all,  disciplinary,  and  not  vindicatory  ! 
The  case  of  the  dying  infant,  plausible  at  the  first  blush,  is  a 
complete  sophism.  Its  whole  plausibility  is  in  the  false  dogma 
of  baptismal  regeneration.  To  make  Bellarmine's  argument 
hold,  he  must  be  able  to  say  that  this  suffering  infant  is  not  only 
elect,  but  already  justified.  This,  he  supposes,  is  effected  in 
baptismal  regeneration.  Now,  we  know  that  this  is  a  figment. 
It  is  not  a  baptism  previous,  which  redeems  this  infant,  but  the 
blood  and  Spirit  of  Christ  applied  only  when  he  dies.  So  that 
during  the  time  of  his  infantile  sufferings,  he  is  yet  unjustified, 
is  still  under  wrath,  and  is  suffering  for  his  birth-guilt. 

Again,  I  say :  let  the  statement  of  vicarious  satisfaction  as 
Argument  from  Per-    ^ot  a  legal  tender,  be  accepted.     Let  us  to 
feet  Satisfaction  of  Be-    the  law  and  the  testimony,  to  learn  whether 
lievers  at  Death.  God,  in  His  sovereign  acceptance  of  Christ's 

equivalent  righteousness,  reserved  any  form  of  guilt  to  be 
exacted  of  the  justified.  Let  it  be  a  question  of  fact.  Now,  I 
argue,  that  no  cleansing  sufferings  can  be  exacted  of  believers 
after  death,  because  God  says  that  they  are  then  pure,  and  have 
no  taint  of  sin  to  purge  away.  See  Shorter  Catechism,  que.  37. 
If  God  teaches  that  "  the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death 
made  perfect  in  holiness,"  then,  according  to  the  Papist's  own 
showing,  there  is  no  room  for  purgatorial  cleansing.  This, 
then,  is  the  cardinal  question.  i  John  iii  :  2.  We  are  like 
Christ  when  we  see  Him  as  He  is.  Eph.  v  :  27.  See  also 
2  Cor.  v  :  1-8,  and  Phil,  i  :  21-23,  compared  with  Rev.  xxi  :  27, 
or  Heb.  xii  :  14.     See  also  Rev.  xiv  :  13 ;  Is.  Ivii  :  i,  2 ;  2  Kings 


544  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

xxii  :  20.  And  now,  I  return,  and  from  this  point  of  view  claim 
all  those  precious  texts  which  declare  the  completeness  of 
Christ's  justifying  righteousness,  as  applicable.  When  God, 
after  teaching  us  this  fact  of  perfect  sanctification  of  the 
believer  at  death,  adds  that  there  is  no  condemnation  to  the 
man  in  Christ,  (Rom.  viii  :  i),  that  His  blood  cleanseth  from  all 
sin,  (i  John  i  :  7),  that  "by  one  offering  He  hath  perfected 
(them)  forever,"  (Heb.  x  :  14),  that  "  He  will  cast  all  their  sins 
into  the  depths  of  the  sea,  (Micah  vii  :  19),  the  testimony  is 
applicable,  and  conclusive. 

Before  proceedmg,  however,  with  this  affirmative  argument, 

Romish  Argument    ^^t  US  notice  Bellarmine's  3d  and  4th  points, 
from  Popular  Consent,    One  is  to  argue  the  principle  of  a  purgatory, 

^'  as  we  do  the  existence  of  God,  from  the  cou- 

seiisiis  populortnn.  The  answer  is,  that  the  universal  testimony 
for  the  existence  of  a  God  is  given  against  the  leanings  of  a 
guilty  conscience  and  self-interest ;  and  is,  therefore,  valuable, 
because  disinterested.  But  the  popularity  of  a  purgatory 
among  sinners  is  no  argument  in  its  favour,  because  the  inven- 
tion is  prompted  by  the  leanings  of  a  guilty  heart.  The 
Romanist's  fourth  argument  is,  that  there  certainly  is  a  purga- 
tory, because  several  Popish  Ghosts  have  come  thence,  and 
stated  the  fact !     This,  of  course,  is  unanswerable  ! 

In  pursuance  of  the  argument,  I  cite  the  case  of  the  peni- 

^    ,         .       ,         tent  thief,  (Luke  xxiii  :  43),  so  well   argued 

Refutation  from     ,        t-  '  >  j  1  j  1      i.i     ^  1         -c 

Bible  Instances.  ^Y    ■*■  urrettm.      1   Only    add,   that  surely,   11 

there  ever  was  a  justified  believer  who  needed 
purgatory,  this  man,  just  plucked,  at\his  dying  hour,  out  of  the 
foulest  sins,  was  the  one.  The  Romish  evasion  is  to  say.  Mar- 
tyrs are  exempt  from  purgatory.  Now,  first,  the  thief  was  no 
martyr  ;  he  did  not  die  for  the  truth  ;  but  died  for  a  robbery. 
Second,  the  exemption  of  martyrs  is  unreasonable  and  unscrip- 
tural.  Their  dying  pangs  are  often  fewer  and  shorter  than  of 
many  saints  who  have  died  in  their  beds  ;  and  their  devotion 
less  meritorious.  Here,  also,  we  may  quote  the  act  of  Stephen, 
who,  speaking  by  immediate  revelation,  commended  his  soul  to 
Christ  in  glory.  So  St.  Paul,  who,  according  to  the  Romish 
doctrine,  had  every  reason  at  the  time  of  his  speaking  to  sup- 
pose himself  a  candidate  for  purgatory,  evidently  believed  the 
opposite ;  for  he  held  that  being  absent  from  the  body  was  to  be 
present  with  the  Lord. 

Next :  the  whole  idea  of  "  satisfaction  "  to  divine  justice 
by  temporary  sufferings  is  unscriptural.  So,  the  idea  that  penal 
sufferings  have  in  themselves  any  sanctifying  virtue,  is  equally 
unreasonable. 

Once  more  :  the  soul  in  purgatory  being,  according  to  the 

The   Soul   Would    Popish  theory,  still  imperfect,  would  be  still 

Contract  Debt  in  Pur-    sinning  ;  and  thus,  new  guilt  would  be  accru- 

^'^'^°^'  ing,  while  it  was  paying  for  the  old.    It  could 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  545 

never  get  out ;  purgatory  would  be  merged  into  an  endless 
hell.  To  avoid  this  conclusion,  which  Bellarmine  expressly 
admits  would  otherwise  follow,  the  Papists  lay  it  down  as  a 
principle,  that  souls  after  death  can  neither  merit  reward  nor 
penalty.  The  only  show  of  proof  for  this  is  the  perversion  of 
such  passages  of  Scriptures  as  say  that,  at  death,  man's  pro- 
bationary state  ends  ;  as,  e.  g.,  Eccles.  ix  :  lo  ;  Jno.  ix  :  4,  &c. 
But  the  statement  that  probation  ends  at  death,  is  better  satis- 
fied by  our  theory,  that  there  is  no  purgatory.  Hence,  this  rea- 
soning is  a  vicious  circle.  The  idea  that  souls  after  death  cease 
to  merit,  is,  moreover,  absurd  and  unscriptural.  Angels  can, 
and  did,  and  do  merit  while  disembodied  spirits.  Responsi- 
bility is  directly  founded  on  the  natural  relation  of  Creator  and 
rational  creature  ;  it  cannot  end,  save  by  the  change  of  the 
creature's  nature,  or  of  God's.  Hence,  the  passage  of  the  crea- 
ture under  a  penal,  or  rewarding  dispensation,  has  no  effect  to 
suspend  his  responsibility.  It  is  not  true,  that  obligation 
rests  on  covenant  alone,  as  Papists  and  Arminians  say ;  so  that 
when  covenant  is  broken  by  sin,  obligation  is  suspended.  It 
rests  on  God's  intrinsic  rights  and  the  creature's  nature.  The 
opposite  view  leads  to  the  absurdity  of  letting  the  sinner  gain 
by  his  sin. 

The  cunning  of  Rome  is  illustrated  by  this  dogma.  She 
may  well  say,  "  By  this  craft  we  have  our  wealth."  It  prolongs 
the  hold  of  priestcraft  over  the  guilty  fears  and  hopes  of  men, 
which  otherwise  must  have  terminated  at  death,  indefinitely. 
Men  would  not  pay  money  to  evade  a  misery  which  was  admit- 
ted to  be  inevitable  ;  the  expenditure  would  appear  useless. 
The  cruelty  of  priestcraft,  in  thus  making  traffic  of  the  remorse 
of  immortal  souls,  and  the  dearest  affections  of  the  bereaved 
for  their  departed  friends,  is  as  impious  as  unfeeling. 

On  the  other  hand,  how  blessed  is  the  creed  of  the  Bible 
touching  the  believer's  death?  With  the  end  of  that  struggle, 
all  our  trials  end,  and  our  everlasting  rest  begins.  With  the 
grave,  and  all  its  horrid  adjuncts,  the  Christian  really  has  no 
concern  ;  for  when  the  senseless  body  is  consigned  to  its  dark- 
ness, the  soul,  the  true  Ego,  the  only  being  which  fears,  and 
hopes,  and  rejoices  and  suffers,  has  already  soared  away  to  the 
bosom  of  its  Redeemer,  and  the  general  assembly  of  the 
glorified. 


35' 


LECTURE  XLV. 

CHRIST'S  HUMILIATION  AND  EXALTATION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Wherein  did  Christ's  Humiliation  consist  ?      Did  it  include  a  descent  into 
HeU  ? 

Shorter  Cat.  Qu.  26-28.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  9,  16.     Calvin,  Inst.  bk.  ii, 
ch.  16,  §  8-13.     Knapp,  g  92,  96. 

2.  Wherein  consisteth  Christ's  Exaltation  ?     What  is  meant  by  His  Session  at  His 
Father's  right-hand  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  19.       Dick,  Lect.  62.       Knapp,  §  97,  99.     Ridgley, 
Qu.  51  to  54. 

3.  How  is  Christ's  Resurrection  Essential  in  His  mediatorial  Work  ? 

Calvin,  Inst.  bk.  ii,  ch.  16,  ^  13.     Jno.  xvi.  .  Dick,  Lect.  61.     Ridgley,  Qu.  52. 
Prove  the  Fact. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiii,  Qu.  17.     Bp.  Sherlock,  "  Trial  of  the  Witnesses."     W^est 
on  the  Resurrection.     Home's  Introduct.  ch.  4,  Vol.  i.  Sect.  2,  |  9. 

4.  What  the  Grounds,  Objects,  and  Mode  of  Christ's  priestly  Intercession  ? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  15.     Dick.  Lect.  59. 

5.  How  doth  Christ  execute  the  office  of  King  ?     As  God,  or  as  Oeav&pojTroq  t 
Wliat  His  kingdom  ?     Wliat  the  extent  of  His  Powers? 

Conf.  of  Faith,   ch.  xxv,  Bk.    of  Gov.  ch.  2.     Turrettin,    Loc.  xiv,   Qu.    16. 
Dick,  Lect.  64.     Ridgley,  Qu.  45.     Knapp,  ^  98,  99. 
2.  What  the  Duration  of  Christ's  Kingdom  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  17.     Dick,  Lect.  64.      Hodge,  i  Cor.  xv  :  24-28. 

J  WHEREIN  did  Christ's  humiliation  consist?  See  Cate- 
*  chism,  Qu.  27.  That  Christ  should  fulfil  the  work  of  a 
Christ's  Humiliation.  Redeemer  in  both  estates,  was  necessary  for 
Did  He  Descend  into  the  purchase  and  the  application  of  sal- 
Hell?  Calvm'sView.  yation.  There  is  seeming  Bible  authority 
for  the  clause  of  the  Creed,  (inserted  later  than  the  body,) 
which  says  that  "  He  went  into  hell."  See  Ps.  xvi  :  10,  as 
quoted  by  Peter  and  Paul.  Acts  ii  and  xiii.  The  Hades  into 
which  Christ  is  there  said  to  have  gone,  receives  four  explana- 
tions. I.  The  grave.  But  it  was  not  the  grave  into  which 
His  "soul"  went.  2.  The  limbus  patnim,  the  Popish.  They 
quote,  also,  i  Pet.  iii  :  19,  and  explain  it  of  the  Old  Testament 
saints;  and  thus  explain  Matt,  xxvii  :  53.  But  we  have  shown 
that  there  is  no  Ihnbus  patnnn.  3.  Some  earlier  Lutherans 
understood  Ps.  xvi  :  10  ;  i  Pet.  iii  :  19,  that  Christ  went  into  the 
hell  of  the  damned,  to  show  them  His  triumph  over  death,  and 
seal  their  fate.  Thus  it  was  a  part  of  His  exaltation.  Both 
this  and  the  previous  notion  are  contradicted  by  Luke  xxiii  : 
43.  4.  Protestants,  by  hades  of  Ps.  xvi  :  10,  now  understand 
simply  the  invisible  or  spirit  world,  to  which  Christ's  soul  went 
while  disembodied.  Calvin  understands  the  creed  to  mean,  by 
Christ's  descent  into  hell,  the  torments  of  spiritual  death,  which 
He  suffered  in  dying,  not  after.  His  idea  is,  that  the  creed 
meant  simply  to  asseverate,  by  the  words,  "  descended  into 
hell,"  the  fact  that  Christ  actually  tasted  the  pangs  of  spiritual 
546 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  547 

•death,  in  addition  to  bodily,  and  in  this  sense  endured  hell-tor- 
ments' for  sinners,  so  far  as  they  can  be  feh  without  sin.  But 
Calvin  expressly  says  that  the  whole  of  that  torment  was  tasted 
before  the  Redeemer's  soul  left  the  body.  For  thence  it  went 
to  rest  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.  He  even  raises  and  answers 
this  question  :  If  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  Creed,  why  is  the 
descent  into  heh  mentioned  after  the  death  and  burial ;  if  the 
thing  it  means  really  occurred  before  ?  The  answer  is  unsatis- 
factory ;  but  this  at  least  shows  that  I  have  not  misunderstood 
Calvin  in  his  peculiar  view.  And  this  is  all  the  ground  which 
exists  for  the  charge  so  often  made  by  persons  who  professed 
much  more  acquaintance  with  Calvin  than  they  possessed,  that 
he  held  to  Christ's  actual  descent  into  the  world  of  damned. 

spirits  ! 

For  Christ's  exaltation,  see   Cat.,  Qu.   28  ;  Phil,  ii  :  6-11  ; 
Is.  liii  :  10-12  ;  Ps.  xxii,   &c.     In  what  sense 

2.  Exaltation.  ^^^  ^^^  exaltation  of  a  divine  Saviour  pos- 
sible ?  (a)  By  removing  the  veil  thrown  over  His  glory  by  in- 
carnation, (b)  By  economical  reward  to  Mediatorial  person, 
for  humiliation.  See  Phil,  ii  :  10,  &c.  (c)  By  exaltation  of 
His  human  nature.  Matt,  xvii  :  2  ;  Rev.  i  :  12-16.  This  exalt- 
ation now,  doubtless,  takes  place,  as  to  Christ's  humanity,  in  a 
place,  called  the  third  heaven,  to  which  He  went  by  literal  local 
motion,  from  our  earth.  Sitting  at  God's  right  hand  means 
nothing  more  than  the  post  of  honour  and  power.  God  has  no 
hand,  literally,  being  immense  spirit.  The  Lutheran  argument 
for  ubiquity  of  Christ's  humanity,  drawn  hence,  is  foolish  ;  for 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  humanity  sits  at  the  right  hand,  that 
hand  is  not  ubiquitous.  It  is  sophism  by  conversion  of  terms. 
Of  this  exaltation,  the  Kingship  is  the  more  permanent  feature. 

Christ's  resurrection    is  every  where  spoken  of    in  Scrip- 
ture as  a  hinging  point  of  the  believer's  sal- 

3.  Resurrection  of  Christ  y^tion  and  hope.  See  Rom.  iv  :  25,  and  i  : 
Proved.    Its  Importance.  ^  .         ^         ^   ^  ,  .    t  ^    ^r^   Sr^  ■ 

^  4 ;  Jno.  XIV  :  19  :    I  Cor.  xv  :  14,  17,  20,  &c., 

Acts  i  :  21,  22  ;  i  Pet.  i  :  3,  &c.  The  Apostles  everywhere 
put  it  forth  as  the  prime  article  of  their  system,  and  main 
point  of  their  testimony.  Whence  this  importance  ?  Before 
we  answer  this  question,  it  may  be  well  to  advert  to  the 
evidences  upon  which  we  are  assured,  that  this  event,  equally 
cardinal  and  wonderful,  really  occurred.  If  you  are  required 
to  show  that  the  fact  is  authentic,  you  may  prove  it. 

(a)  From  Old  Testament  predictions,  such  as  Ps.  xvi  :  10. 
This  event  is  one  of  the  criteria  predicted  for  the  Messiah. 
Then,  if  you  have  proved  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Messiah; 
you  may  claim  that  a  resurrection  is  to  be  expected  for  Him. 

(b)  Christ  expressly  predicted  His  own  resurrection.  Matt. 
XX  :  19,  and  xxvii  :  ^l  ;  John  x  :  18.  If  He  is  not  a  monstrous 
impostor,  which  His  lovely  character  disproves,  we  must  expect 
to  find  it  true. 


548  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

(c)  We  have  the  testimony  of  many  witnesses  who  saw 
Him  after  His  rising ;  of  the  eleven,  of  above  400  brethren^ 
and  last  of  Paul ;  witnesses,  competent,  honest,  and  credible. 
They  knew  Christ  by  sight ;  yet  they  were  at  first  incredulous. 
They  had  everything  to  lose,  and  nothing  to  gain,  by  bearing 
false  testimony  here.  On  this  point  the  convincing  arguments 
of  the  Christian  writers  are  familiar  to  your  reading. 

(d)  The  miracles  wrought  in  confirmation  of  the  fact  prove 
it.  See  Heb.  ii  :  4.  The  Apostles,  we  read,  in  the  act  of  invo- 
king God's  miraculous  aid,  appealed  to  it  as  proof  that  their 
testimony  was  true.  See  Acts  iii :  16.  Now,  to  suppose  that  God 
sanctioned  such  an  appeal,  by  putting  forth  His  own  power  then, 
would  make  Him  an  accomplice  to  the  deception.  So  the  spirit- 
ual effusion  of  Pentecost,  especially,  and  all  the  subsequent,  are 
proofs  ;  for  they  are  fruits  of  His  ascension.     See  Acts  ii  :  33  ; 

V  :  32. 

(e)  The  change  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  perpetual  monumental 
evidence  of  the  resurrection.  For  4,000  years  it  had  been 
observed  on  the  7th  day  of  the  week.  It  is  now  universally 
observed  on  the  1st  day  by  Christians.  Whence  the  change  ? 
The  Church  has  constantly  asserted  that  it  was  made  to  com- 
memorate the  rise  of  its  Redeemer  from  the  dead.  Now  a 
public,  monumental  observance  cannot  be  propagated  among, 
men  to  commemorate  an  imaginary  event.  The  introduction  of 
the  observance  would  inevitably  challenge  remark,  and  the  im- 
posture would  have  been  instantly  exposed.  Americans  cele- 
brate the  4th  of  July.  They  say,  it  is  to  commemorate  Ameri- 
can independence.  Had  there  been  no  such  event  as  the  pub- 
lishing of  the  Declaration,  July  4th,  1776,  the  commemoration 
could  not  have  been  successfully  introduced  to  the  universal 
observance  of  Americans,  afterwards.  The  false  reason  assign- 
ed must  have  provoked  exposure.  Multitudes  of  the  best  in- 
formed would  have  said  :  "  But,  historically,  there  has  been  no- 
such  event  to  remember!"  This  must  have  arrested  the  pro- 
posal. Rome  has,  indeed,  introduced  memorials  of  legendary, 
and  pro}3ably  imaginary.  Saints.     But  this  could  only  be  done,. 

(a)  through  the  prevalence  of  great  superstition  and  ignorance : 

(b)  many  centuries  after  the  pretended  events  :  (c)  and  only  to 
a  partial  extent,  among  local  votaries,  who  make  money  by  the 
deception. 

Let  us  now  resume  and  answer  the  questions.  What  the 
importance  of  this  cardinal  fact,  in  the  doctrine  of  our  redemp- 
tion ?  I.  Because  it  was  necessary  to  clear  His  memory  of  the 
charge  of  religious  imposture,  under  which  He  died,  and  tO' 
vindicate  His  character  as  God's  well-approved  Son.  See  Rom. 
i  :  4.  2.  Because  it  evinced  the  adequacy  of  His  satisfaction 
for  man's  guilt.  When  our  Surety  comes  triumphing  out  of 
prison,  we  know  our  whole  debt  is  settled.  3.  It  was  neces- 
sary to  demonstrate  His  power,  as  the  Captain  of  our  salvation,. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  549 

to  conquer  our  most  dreaded  enemies.  Heb.  ii  :  14,  15.  4. 
The  resurrection  was  necessary  to  enable  Christ  to  be  our  Sanc- 
tifier,  Advocate,  and  King.  See  Jno.  xvi  :  7  ;  Rom.  viii  :  1 1  ; 
I  Cor.  vi  :  15  ;  i  Thess.  iv  :  14.  5.  The  resurrection  of  Christ 
is  the  earnest  and  proof  of  ours,  i  Cor.  xv  :  20,  24  ;  Phil, 
iii  :  21,  &c. 

4.  The    ground    of  Christ's    intercession    is    His    vicarious 

Christ's  Intercession,  righteousness,  which  He  pleads  before  the 
Its  Ground,  &c.  V^ien  Father.  Is.  liii  :  12.  The  mode  of  His  in- 
DoesitEnd?  tercession    is    by   petition;  e.  g.,  Jno.  xvii. 

Some  have  supposed  that  this  suppliant  attitude  implies  an  infe- 
riority incompatible  with  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Son.  To 
mediate  does  imply  a  certain  economical  inferiority  of  atti- 
tude ;  but  no  more.  Some  find,  in  Jno.  xvii  :  24,  "  Father,  I 
will,"  &c.,  evidence  of  a  more  authoritative  intervention.  It  is 
overstraining  the  verb,  &t)M.  But  compare  Jno.  v  :  6,  et  passim. 
Yet  it  is  certain  that  Christ's  petitions  have  a  more  authoritative 
basis  than  ours,  being  urged  on  the  ground  of  His  covenant 
and  perfect  purchase,  i  Jno.  ii  :  i.  A  more  plausible  diffi- 
culty is  this :  "  If  all  power  is  given  into  Christ's  hands,  (Matt, 
xxviii  :  18  ;  Eph,  i  :  22  ;  Col.  ii  :  9,  10,)  why  need  He  inter- 
cede at  all?  Why  not  do,  of  Himself,  without  interceding,  all 
that  His  people  need  ?"  The  answer  is,  that  Christ  is  a  royal 
Priest,  (Zech.  vi  :  13,)  not  Aaronic,  but  Melchisedekan  :  and  His 
intercession  is  rather  a  perpetual  holding  up  of  His  own  right- 
eousness on  behalf  of  His  people,  by  a  perpetual  pleading,  in 
order  that  He  may,  on  that  ground,  have  this  viceroyal  power 
of  succouring  all  their  wants.  And  as  a  royal  Priest,  He  holds 
up  His  righteousness  to  the  Father,  as  a  plea  for  admitting  each 
one  of  the  elect  into  that  body,  His  kingdom,  to  which  the 
Father  has  authorized  Him  to  dispense  His  fulness. 

The  objects  of  Christ's  intercession  are  the  elect  particu- 

Its  Objects.  \^r\y.     See  Jno.  xvii  :  9.     Also,   His  official 

intercession  is  always  prevalent ;  if  He 
prayed  for  all,  all  would  be  saved :  but  all  are  not  saved. 
Hence,  His  prayer  for  the  pardon  of  His  murderers,  Luke 
xxiii  :  34,  must  be  explained,  as  being  limited  by  its  terms  to 
those  of  His  persecutors  who  sinned  in  ignorance.  And  we 
conclude  that  every  one  of  these  was  among  the  "  great  com- 
pany of  the  priests,  Acts  vi  :  7,  who  became  "  obedient  to  the 
faith."  There  is  an  alternative  solution,  which  is  less  satisfac- 
tory :  That  this  prayer  was  not  Messianic  and  officially  Media- 
torial ;  but  only  the  expression  of  Christian  meekness  by  our 
pattern,  the  man  Jesus.  This  attempt  to  discriminate  between 
the  agency  of  the  divine  and  human  wills  in  Christ,  where  the 
act  is  ethical  and  spiritual,  is  perilous. 

He  must  have  also  interceded  officially  for  the  Old  Testa- 
ment saints,  for  three  reasons.  The  theophanies  are  believed 
to  have  been  interventions  of  the  Son.     This  implies  that  He 


550  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

had  already  sought  and  obtained  leave  to  bless  His  people. 
2d.  If  they  had  no  intercessor,  how  could  a  holy  and  righteous 
God  give  His  favour  to  sinners  ?  3d.  We  have  a  case  :  Zech. 
iii  :  1-6.  But  while  Christ's  mediation  is  limited  to  the  elect, 
there  is  a  sense  in  which  He  intervenes  for  the  whole  race. 
Doubtless,  it  is  His  work  for  man,  which  prevented  the  doom 
from  following  the  fall,  as  promptly  as  Satan's,  and  which  pro- 
cures for  the  world  all  the  instances  of  God's  long-suffering. 

The  duration  of  Christ's  intercession  seems  different  to  dif- 
T,  T^     ,.  ferent  minds.     Some  suppose  that  He  will 

Its  iJuration.  i        ,     r  11  tt-  1        i-  -n 

plead  lorever ;  and  that  His  pleadmg  will 
secure  an  everlasting  suspension  of  wrath,  and  bestowal  of  ever- 
renewed  graces  and  gifts.  They  quote  Heb.  vii  :  25.  Others 
suppose  that  this  is  only  relatively  endless,  compared  with  the 
brief  ministry  of  an  Aaronic  priest ;  and  that  having  thor- 
oughly reconciled  the  whole  Church  to  God,  and  re-instated 
them  in  holiness  as  v/ell  as  favour,  no  farther  need  of  His  inter- 
cession will  exist ;  but  God  can  dispense  His  blessings  unasked 
by  an  advocate,  as  on  the  holy  angels.  I  lean  to  the  former 
part.  Add  :  that  His  priesthood  is  spoken  of  as  everlasting. 
Ps.  ex;  Heb.  vii  :  3,  24.  His  sacrifice  is  ended,  "once  for  all." 
If  His  intercession  is  not  eternal,  in  what  sense  does  His  priest- 
hood continue?  Further:  He  seems  stih  to  be  the  Medium, 
after  the  full  glorification  of  the  church,  through  which  they 
receive  the  blessings  of  redemption.  Rev.  vii  :  17,  &c.  And 
this  is  much  the  most  consistent  and  pleasing  view  of  the  rela- 
tion of  the  glorified  Church  to  God. 

See   Cat.   question   26.     As    eternal    Son,   the    2d    person 

^,  •  p    IT-    A  doubtless  shares  forever,  the  natural  and  infi- 

Cnnst  s  Kingdom.  .  ,         .    .  _      ,        V-      ,,         ,         -r->  >  • 

nite    dominion    01    the    Godhead.      But   this 

Mediatorial  kingdom  is  conferred  and  economical,  exercised 
not  merely  in  His  divine  nature,  but  by  Him  as  Ssdv&iico-oz 
The  Person  receives  this  exaltation.  The  extent  of  His  king-" 
dom  is  universal.  See  texts  above,  and  Phil,  ii  :  10,  11.  The 
Church  is  His  immediate  domain  :  its  members  are  His  citi- 
zens ;  and  for  their  benefit  His  powers  are  all  wielded.  But 
His  power  extends  over  all  the  human  race,  the  angelic  ranks, 
good  and  bad,  and  the  powers  of  nature.  This  exaltation, 
therefore,  shows  our  Saviour  as  clearly  divine,  for  no  finite  wis- 
dom or  powers  are  at  all  adequate  to  its  task.  The  nature  of 
this  benign  kingdom  is  very  clearly  set  forth  in  Ps.  ii,  xlv,  ex, 
and  Ixxii ;  in  Is.  ix,  &c.,  &c.,  and  in  the  passages  above  quoted. 
The  phrase,  "  Kingdom  of  God,"  of  "  Heaven,"  &c.,  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament  in  somewhat  varying  senses  ;  but  they  all 
signify  the  different  aspects  of  that  one  spiritual  reign,  called 
"  the  kingdom  of  Christ."  (a)  True  religion,  or  the  reign  of 
Christ  in  the  heart.  Luke  xii  :  31  ;  xvii  :  21  ;  Mark  x  :  15  ; 
iv  :  26.  (b)  The  visible  Church  under  the  new  dispensation. 
Mat.  xiii  :  40,  41  ;    iv  :  17;    Mark  i:  15.       (c)     The    perfected 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  55 1 

Church  in  glory.  Luke  xiii  :  29 ;  2  Pet.  i  :  ii.  It  is  a  purely- 
spiritual  kingdom,  as  is  proved  by  our  Saviour's  words,  (Jno. 
xviii  :  36),  by  the  nature  of  its  objects  ;  the  redemption  of 
souls  ;  by  the  nature  of  its  agencies,  viz.,  truth  and  mercy  and 
holiness,  (see  Ps.  xlv  :  3,  4),  by  the  conduct  of  Christ  and  His 
Apostles  while  on  earth,  in  paying  tribute,  living  subordinate  to 
magistrates,  &c.  This  respects  its  terrestrial  modes  of  admin- 
istration :  for  as  to  its  secret  and  superhuman  modes,  they  are 
properly  almighty,  and  both  physical  and  spiritual. 

Orthodox  divines  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  duration  of  this 
6.    Duration  of   kingdom.     If  we  would   fix   the  date  of  its 
Christ's  Kingdom.  Be-    beginning,  we  must  make  it,  in  some  respects, 
ginning.  co-eval  with  Christ's  intercession — i.  e.,  with 

the  protevangelium  proclaimed  to  man.  For  it  is  plain,  that 
saints  before  the  incarnation  had  all  the  same  necessities  for  a 
divine  King  to  conquer,  protect,  and  rule  them,  which  we  expe- 
rience now  ;  and  lay  under  the  same  obstacles  as  to  receiving 
these  blessings  from  a  holy  God  directly,  who  was  bound  by 
His  justice  and  truth  to  punish  and  destroy  sinners.  Again  ; 
we  have  seen  instances,  the  various  theophanies,  in  which  the 
Son,  under  the  person  of  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  busied 
Himself  for  the  protection  of  His  people.  Again,  Ps.  ii  speaks 
of  Christ's  kingdom,  not  only  as  promised,  but  as  having  an 
institution  co-eval  with  the  declaration  to  man  of  His  Sonship. 
See  best  interpretation  of  v.  7.  But  yet  the  God-man  was  only 
inducted  into  His  peculiar  and  delegated  viceroyalty,  after,  and 
as  a  reward  of.  His  sufferings.  See  Phil.  ii.  And  the  "king- 
dom of  God  "  is  often  spoken  of  at  the  time  of  Christ's  coming, 
as  being  then  at  hand,  or  as  a  thing  then  coming.  We  must, 
therefore,  conclude,  that  while  the  Son  was  permitted  to  inter- 
cede aifd  rule  before  His  incarnation,  on  the  ground  of  His 
work  to  be  rendered  to  the  Father,  His  kingdom  received  a  still 
more  explicit  establishment  after  His  resurrection. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  other  terminus,  we  are  met 

T,      .    ^.     ,  by  a  still  more  serious  difference  of  opinion. 

1  ermination !  _■'  ■  i    --r^  •  11,1 

Some,  with  iurrettm,  suppose  that  the  dele- 
gated mediatorial  kingdom  over  the  Church  will  undergo  a 
change  in  the  mode  of  its  administration  at  the  final  consum- 
mation, its  relation  to  its  enemies,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  its 
own  wants,  being  greatly  modified  ;  but  that  in  other  respects 
it  will  continue  :  in  that  the  Osdvd-fno-o^  will  be  the  direct  medium 
for  the  saints'  guidance  and  government  still ;  and  this  forever 
and  ever.  The  arguments  are,  that  perpetual  and  everlasting 
duration  are  promised  to  it;  e.g.,  Ps.  Ixxii  :  17;  Is.  ix  :  7  ; 
Dan.  vii  :  14;  Dan.  ii  :  44.  Second.  His  people  will  need  pro- 
tection and  guidance,  just  as  they  will  need  teaching  and  inter- 
cession, forever.  For  their  glorification  will  not  render  them 
naturally  impeccable  or  infallible.  Yea,  as  we  have  seen,  when 
speaking  of  Socinianism,  they  must  have  this  ruling  and  teach- 


552  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ing,  or  some  day  in  futurity  they  will  go  astray  again.  But  it 
seems  far  more  natural  to  suppose  that  these  blessings  will  still 
be  given  through  Christ  their  Head,  to  whom  they  were  spiri- 
tually united  at  their  conversion.  The  personal  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  will  continue.  But  for  what  purpose,  if  the 
mediatorial  connection  is  terminated  ?  INIoreover,  the  Revela- 
tion seems  to  decide  the  question,  showing  us  the  Lamb,  (ch. 
v  :  6),  receiving  the  homage  of  the  glorified  Church,  (ch.  vii : 
17),  leading  and  feeding  it  still,  and  (ch.  xxi  :  22,  23),  acting, 
after  the  final  consummation,  as  the  light  of  heaven.  Third. 
In  Rev.  xix  :  7,  8,  the  marriage  of  the  Church  to  the  Lamb  is 
spoken  of  as  then  consummated,  amidst  the  glories  of  the  final 
consummation.  All  that  was  previous  was  but  the  wooing,  as 
it  were  ;  and  it  seems  very  unnatural  to  conceive  of  the  pecu- 
liar connexion  as  terminating  with  the  marriage.  Then  it  only 
begins  properly. 

Others,  as  Dick,  seem  to  attach  so  much  importance  and 

force  to  I  Cor.  xv  :  24-28,  as  to  suppose  that 
plained '^'   ^^' ^"^  it    necessitates    another    supposition;     that 

Christ  having  reinstated  the  Church  in  holi- 
ness and  the  favour  of  God,  and  subdued  all  its  enemies,  there 
will  no  longer  be  any  necessity  for  the  peculiar  mediatorial 
plan  ;  but  God  will  rule  directly  over  saints  as  over  the  rest  of 
His  holy  universe  before  man  fell ;  and  Christ  will  have  no 
other  kingdom  than  that  which  He  naturally  holds  as  of  the 
Godhead.  In  answer  to  Turrettin's  first  argument,  they  would 
say  that  the  everlasting  duration  promised  to  Christ's  kingdom, 
is  only  relative  to  the  evanescent  generations  of  men :  and 
means  no  more  than  that  it  shall  outlast  all  generations  of  earth. 
This,  they  say,  is  even  indicated  in  the  Ps.  Ixxii  ;  17,  where  the 
"  forever"  is  defined  to  mean  as  long  as  the  Sun.  But  'Uhe  sun 
shall  be  turned  into  darkness  before  the  great  and  terrible  day 
of  the  Lord."  As  to  the  second  argument,  it  is  admitted  that 
the  saints  in  heaven  will  always  need  teaching  and  ruling  ;  but 
it  is  supposed  that  they  being  thoroughly  justified  and  sancti- 
fied, God  may  bestow  these  graces  on  them  directly,  as  the 
elect  angels,  without  a  mediatorial  intervention.  These  views 
appear  plausible ;  but  they  come  short  of  a  full  clearing  up  of 
the  subject.  They  leave  unbroken  the  force  of  the  passages 
cited  from  Revelation.  The  whole  tenour  of  the  Scripture 
seems  to  imply  that  the  peculiar  relationship,  not  only  of  grati- 
tude and  affection,  but  also  of  spiritual  union,  formed  between 
Christ  and  His  people,  is  to  be  everlasting.  He  is  their  ''alpha 
and  their  omega!'  His  life  is  the  spring  and  warrant  of  their 
life.  It  is  their  union  to  Him  which  ensures  the  resurrection  of 
their  bodies,  and  the  eternal  life  of  both  body  and  spirit.  See 
Jno.  xiv  :  19.  The  change  made  in  the  method  of  God's  gov- 
erning the  universe,  by  means  of  the  incarnation,  will  continue, 
in  some  respects  to  all  eternity,    as  a  standing  monument  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  553 

Jesus  Christ's  victory  and  grace.  Nor  does  the  passage  from 
I  Cor.  XV  :  24,  seem  insuperable.  That  a  striking  change  will  then 
take  place  in  the  method  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom,  cannot 
be  doubted.  Perhaps  it  will  consist  largely  in  this,  that  Christ's 
power  over  the  universe  (external  to  His  body,  the  Church), 
will  be  returned  to  the  Godhead.  But  the  restoration  of  the 
Church  to  the  Father,  as  an  accomplished  enterprise,  is  to  be 
received,  not  as  implying  a  severance  of  Christ's  headship,  but 
as  a  surrendering  of  Himself  along  with  it,  body  and  head,  as  an 
aggregate.  Let  i  Cor.  iii :  23,  be  compared.  It  need  not  follow, 
that,  because  the  dominion  of  the  God-man  over  wicked  men 
and  angels  and  inanimate  nature,  is  restored  to  the  Godhead,  so 
that  it  may  again  be  "all  in  all,"  Christ's  redeeming  headship  to 
His  people  must  be  severed.  The  Viceroy  may  bring  back  the 
province  once  in  insurrection,  under  His  Father's  authority,  so 
that  it  shall  be  paramount  and  universal ;  and  yet,  the  Son's  most 
appropriate  reward  may  be,  that  He  shall  continue  the  immedi- 
ate Ruler  and  Benefactor  of  the  restored  subjects.  This,  on  the 
whole,  seems  to  be  the  Bible  teaching.  It  is  at  once  most  con- 
soling to  believers  and  most  honorable  to  Christ. 


LECTURE  XL  VI 

EFFECTUAL  CALLING. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  How  are  we  made  partakers  of  the  Redemption  purchased  by  Christ?     See. 
Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  9,  Cat.  Qu.  29. 

2.  Whence  the  Necessity  of  a  Call  to  man  ? 
Dick,  Lect .  65.     Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  i. 

3.  How  many  calls  does  God  give  to  men  ?     And  what  is  the  difference  between 
Common  and  Effectual  Calling  ? 

Shorter  Cat.  Qu.  31.  Larger  Cat.  Qu.  68.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  i,  4. 
Hill,  bk.  V,  ch.  i.     Ridgley,  Qu.  67.     Knapp.  §  129. 

4.  What  then  can  be  God's  true  Design  in  the  "  Common  Call  "  of  non-elect 
Men  ;  and  how  may  His  Sincerity  therein  be  cleared  ? 

Turrettin,,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  2.  Howe's  Works,  "  Reconcilableness  of  God's 
prescience,  &c.,  with  the  Wisdom  and  Sincerity  of  His  Counsels."  Works  of 
Andrew  Fuller.  Gospel  Worthy  of  all  acceptation,  pt.  iii.  Arminian  and 
Socinian  Polemics.    Passim.     Hodge's  Theol.  pt.  iii,  ch.  14. 

4(  VVT'E  are  made  partakers  of  the  redemption  purchased  by 
Christ,  by  the   effectual  application  of  it  to  us  by 
I.    Application    of   Christ's  Holy  Ghost."     We  now  come  to  the 
Redemption  by  Holy    great  branch  of  Theology — The  Application 
^^°^*-  of     Redemption — in    which     the     kingdom 

founded  by  Jesus  Christ's  humiliation  is  set  up  and  carried  on. 
In  this  work.  His  priestly  office  is  only  exercised  in  heaven,  by 
His  intercession.  It  is  His  prophetic  and  kingly  which  He 
exercises    on    earth.       And   the   person    of    the   Trinity   now 


554  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

brought  into  discussion  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  proceedetb 
from  the  Father  through  the  Son.  As  the  doctrines  of  Creation, 
Providence,  the  Law,  chiefly  concerned  the  Father;  that  of 
atonement  and  priesthood  chiefly  concerned  the  Son ;  so  this 
brings  into  view  chiefly  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  would,  there- 
fore, be  the  most  natural  place  to  bring  into  view  the  doctrine 
of  the  Spirit's  personality,  nature,  and  agency ;  but  as  you 
have  already  attended  to  these,  I  proceed. 

The  great   necessity  for  the  effectual  calling  of  man  is  in 

^.     ^,        .  his   original  sin.       Were   he   not   by   nature 

2.    Sin   Necessitates     j  ,  j    i  •     j-  •■•  i     n      •      i-        t 

the  Call.  depraved,  and  his  disposition  wholly  inclined 

to  ungodliness,  the  mere  mention  of  a  plan, 
by  which  deliverance  from  guilt  and  unholiness  was  assured, 
would  be  enough  ;  all  would  flock  to  embrace  it.  But  such  is 
man's  depravity,  that  a  redemption  must  not  only  be  provided, 
but  he  must  be  effectually  persuaded  to  embrace  it.  Now  since 
our  effectual  calling  is  the  remedy  for  our  original  sin  ;  as  is  our 
conception  of  the  disease,  such  will  be  our  conception  of  the 
remedy.  Hence,  in  fact,  all  men's  theology  is  determind  here- 
upon, by  their  views  of  original  sin.  We,  who  believe  the 
unconverted  will  to  be  certainly  determined  to  ungodliness,  by 
ungodly  dispositions,  therefore  believe  in  an  effectual  and  super- 
natural call.     Jno.  iii  :  5  and  6. 

Calvinists  admit   only  two  kinds  of  call  from   the  gospel  to 

man — the  common  and  the  effectual.  They 
mon  or^Effectuai.  °™'    deny  that  there  is  any  natural  call  uttered  by 

the  voice  of  nature  and  Natural  Theology; 
for  the  simple  reason  that  whatever  information  it  might  give  of 
the  being  and  government  of  God,  of  His  righteousness,  and 
of  His  punishments  for  sin,  it  holds  out  no  certain  warrant  that 
He  will  be  merciful  to  sinners,  nor  of  the  terms  whereon  He 
can  be  so.  Where  there  is  no  revealed  gospel,  there  is  no 
gospel  call.  And  this  is  only  to  say,  that  Natural  Theology  is 
insufficient  to  salvation. 

The  common  call  consists  of  the  preached  word,  addressed 
to  men's  ears  and  souls,  together  with  (in  most,  at  least),  the 
common  convincing  operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  call 
is  made  generally  to  the  whole  human  race  in  Scripture,  and 
specifically  to  each  adult  to  whom  the  gospel  comes.  The 
effectual  call,  we  hold,  consists  of  these  elements,  and  also  of 
a  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  whereby  convincing  us  of  our  sin 
and  misery,  enlightening  our  minds  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ, 
and  renewing  our  wills.  He  doth  persuade  and  enable  us  to 
embrace  Jesus  Christ  freely  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel." 
Arminians,  indeed,  assert  that  the  call  is  one  and  the  same,  so 
far  as  God's  dispensation  towards  men  is  concerned,  to  all 
under  the  gospel ;  and  that  it  only  differs  by  its  results  in  dif- 
ferent cases,  which  difference  is  made  only  by  man's  free  will. 
This  we  shall  more  fully  disprove  when  we  come  to  show  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  555 

nature  of  regeneration  ;  but  it  may  now  be  disproved  briefly  by 
these  thoughts  :  (a).  That  a  difference  is  asserted  between  the 
nature  of  God's  calls;  in  Scripture,  Matt,  xx  :  16;  Jno.  vi  :  44, 
45.  (b).  That  the  effectual  calling  is  a  result  of  election;  but 
the  event  proves  that  all  are  not  elect.  See  Rom.  viii  :  28 ; 
xi  :  29;  viii  :  30;  Acts  xiii  :  48.  (c).  If  the  call  only  differed 
in  the  answer  made  to  it  by  man's  free  will  :  i  Cor.  iv  :  7,  would 
not  remain  true  ;  nor  Rom.  ix  :  16. 

God's  design  in  the  common  call  of  the  unconverted  may 

4.  Designs  of  God  be  Said  to  be  threefold.  First,  it  is  His 
in  Common  Call.  To  appointed  and  proper  means  for  saving  from 
Gather  Elect.  among  them,  the  elect.     And  He  either  must 

have  adopted  this  generality  in  the  outward  call;  or  else  He 
must  have  adopted  one  of  two  expedients.  He  must  have 
actually  saved  all,  or  He  must  have  separated  the  non-elect 
wholly  from  the  participation  of  the  common  call.  Had  He 
adopted  the  latter  plan,  surely  those  who  now  complain  of 
partiality  would  then  have  complained  far  more  loudly.  Had 
He  adopted  the  former,  where  would  have  been  His  manifesta- 
tion of  His  sovereignty ;  and  where  that  evidence  of  regular 
customary  connection  between  means  and  ends,  conduct  and 
destiny,  on  which  He  has  seen  fit  to  found  His  government  ? 
God's  second  design  in  making  the  common  call  universal, 

^   ^  ^,.   „       was  the  exercise  of  the  general  holiness,  good- 

nevolence.  "^^^'  ^^^  compassion  of  His  nature,  (which 

generally  regard  all  His  creatures),  in  dis- 
suading all  from  sin  and  self-destruction.  God's  holiness, 
which  is  universally  opposed  to  sin,  makes  it  proper  that  He 
shall  dissuade  from  sin,  every  where,  and  in  all  sinners.  God's 
mercy  and  goodness,  being  made  possible  towards  the  human 
race  by  their  being  under  a  gospel  dispensation,  make  it  proper 
that  He  shall  dissuade  all  from  self-destruction.  And  this  benev- 
olence not  only  offers  a  benefit  to  sinners  generally,  but  actually 
confers  one — i.  e.,  a  temporary  enjoyment  of  a  dispensation  of 
mercy,  and  a  suspension  of  wrath,  with  all  the  accompanying 
mercies,  and  the  offer  itself  of  salvation.  This  offer  is  itself  a 
benefit:  only  man's  perverseness  turns  it  into  a  curse.  Blessed 
be  God,  His  word  assures  us  that  this  common  call  is  an  expres- 
sion of  sincere  benevolence  towards  all  sinners,  elect  and  non- 
elect,  (a  compasssion  whose  efficient  outgoing  is,  however,  con- 
ditioned, as  to  all,  on  faith  and  penitence  in  them).  Ezek. 
xxxiii  :  1 1  ;   Ps.  Ixxxi  :  1 3  ;    i  Tim.  ii  :  4. 

God's  third  design  in  making  the  common  call  universal  is, 

^     ^,        ^^.      ,^    that  when  men  ruin  themselves,  as  He  fore- 
1  o    Clear    Hunself.  ,  i  i  j    t  t  •     i     i  •  ^ 

saw  they  would,  His  holmess,  goodness,  com- 
passion and  truth  may  be  entirely  cleared,  in  their  fate,  before 
heaven  and  earth.  It  was  a  part  of  His  eternal  plan,  to  mag- 
nify His  own  goodness,  by  offering  to  human  sinners  a  provision 
for  salvation   so  complete,  as  to  remove   every  obstacle  arising; 


■556  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

out  of  His  justice  and  law ;  so  that  in  their  final  damnation,  all 
the  universe  may  see  how  lovely  God  is ;  and  how  desperate  an 
evil  sin  is.     And  this  is  properly  God's  highest  end. 

It  has  been  often  charged  that,  if  God  makes  an  internal  dif- 

^       ference  in  sinners' hearts,  between  the  common 

Insincere.  "  ^^^^   '^"^   ^^^^  effectual.  His   wisdom,   or  His 

sincerity,  in  extending  that  common  call  to 
all,  is  tarnished. 

In  defending  God's  sincerity  and  wisdom  in  this  matter,  let 
us  make  this  preliminary  remark :  That  we  have  discarded  the 
Thomist  proposition,  which  asserts  God's  efficient  prcBciirsjis 
in  the  sinful  acts  of  men.  The  student  may  recall  our  grounds, 
in  the  twenty-fifth  Lecture,  for  disencumbering  God's  provi- 
dence of  that  dogma.  Hence,  we  have  not  to  account  here  for 
any  prcecurstis  of  God's,  in  those  unbelieving  acts  of  the  sinner 
under  the  gospel,  by  which  he  resists  its  gracious  invitations 
and  commands.  All  we  have  to  account  for  is  God's  pres- 
cience and  permission  of  the  unbelief  and  disobedience.  So 
that  the  problem  we  have  to  discuss  is  exactly  this.  Is  God 
both  wise  and  sincere,  in  invititing  and  commanding  to  gospel 
duty,  such  sinners  as  He  foresees  will  neglect  it ;  while  His  own 
purpose  is  distinctly  formed,  not  to  put  forth  His  omnipotent 
Spirit,  to  cause  them  to  submit  ?  That  He  is  wise  in  doing  so, 
follows  without  difficuty,  from  the  positions  already  laid  down 
assigning  the  several  consistent  ends  God  has  in  view  in  His 
dealings  with  unbelievers.  If  that  part  of  these  ends,  which 
does  not  include  their  own  redemption  is  uise,  then  the  provi- 
dence is  wise. 

In  reply  we  assert,  First:  The  Scriptures  exphcitly  direct 

the  common  call  to  be  extended  to  all ;  e.  g., 

Mark  xvi  115.  They  assert  that  God  does 
efficaciously  persuade  some,  and  not  others,  to  embrace  it : 
Rom.  ix  :  16  ;  xi  :  7.  And  they  also  say  that  God  is  both  wise 
and  sincere  m  His  offers  and  dealings,  Ezek.  xxxiii  :  1 1  ;  Luke 
xix  :  42  ;  2  Tim.  ii  :  19.  Now,  in  any  other  science  than  the- 
ology, when  facts  are  ascertained  on  valid  evidence,  they  are  all 
admitted,  whether  they  can  be  reconciled  or  not.  I  remark 
farther  :  that  to  deny  the  doctrine  of  effectual  calling  does  not 
much  relieve  the  subject ;  for  God's  prescience  of  the  actual 
results  of  His  universal  call,  involve  very  much  the  same  diffi- 
culties as  to  His  wisdom  and  sincerity. 

Second  :  The  objector  says  that  God  cannot  have  done  the 

thing  Calvinists  represent  Him  as  doing, 
VerjST'^''^''^*^    becauseincompatible  with  His  sincerity.  But 

what  if  we  find  Him  saying  that  He  does  this 
very  thing  ?  This  is  precisely  the  case.  In  His  Scriptures  He 
represents  Himself  as  giving  unquestionable  admonitions  and 
invitations  to  men  whom,  He  expressly  declares  at  the  time, 
He  intends  to  permit  to  destroy  themselves.     Compare,  for  in- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  55/ 

Stance,  Exod.  v  :  i,  with  vii  :  3,  4.  In  the  one  text  God  says  to 
Pharaoh  :  "Let  my  people  go,"  while  in  the  other,  He  informs 
Moses  :  "  He  will  not  hearken,  that  I  may  lay  my  hand  upon 
Egypt."  In  Isaiah  v  :  9,  Jehovah  commissions  Isaiah  to  preach 
to  Judea  :  and  the  tenour  of  his  preaching  may  be  seen  in 
Chap,  i  :  18  ;  which  is  a  gracious  offer  of  cleansing.  But  in  Ch. 
vi  :  II,  Isaiah  is  informed  that  his  preaching  is  destmed  to 
harden  his  countrymen  to  their  almost  universal  destruction. 
Ezek.  iii  :  7,  II,  presents  the  very  same  case.  One  is  presented 
in  Matt,  xxiii  :  33-35,  with  'i,'j,  which  is,  if  possible,  still  stronger. 
These  cases  end  the  debate,  so  far  as  the  question  of  fact  goes. 
My  point  is,  that  God  here  avows  the  doing  of  the  very  thing 
the  Arminians  say  He  must  not  do.  This  is  a  perfect  proof,  at 
least,  that  their  difficulty  has  not  arisen  from  any  Calvinistic 
misstatement  of  God's  plan.  We  might  then,  dismiss  the 
debate,  and  leave  them  to  settle  their  controversy  with  God,  as 
best  they  may. 

Third :  The  course  of  God's  providence  in  natural  things, 

is  liable  to  the  same  difficulty.     He  spares 

Providence  Involves    gi^ners.     "  He  sends  His  rain  on  the  just  and 

the  Same  Question.  .  1      tt-  •  1 

unjust ;  and   causeth   His   sun  to  rise  on  the 

good  and  evil."  See  Acts  xiv  :  17.  Now  Peter  (2  Epist.  iii  -.15) 
tells  us  that  the  "long  suffering  of  our  God  is  salvation."  If 
His  admitting  sinners  to  the  gospel  call,  whom  He  yet  foresees 
to  be  bent  on  their  own  destruction,  is  insincere  ;  and  the 
reality  qf  His  benefit  therein  is  doubted,  because  He  never  effi- 
caciously purposed  to  make  them  repent,  His  providential  good- 
ness also  is  no  true  goodness.  But  what  sinner  believes  this  ? 
We  have  here  every  feature,  in  which,  Arminians  say,  their  diffi- 
culty inheres.  These  earthly  blessings  are  overtures  of  mercy, 
and  are  intended  as  such.  God  foresees  their  neglect,  and  the 
continued  impenitence  of  the  recipients.  Physically,  He  is  able 
to  add  to  these  suasives  the  otlier  means,  and  the  efficacious 
grace,  which  would  certainly  bring  the  recipients  to  repentance. 
But  He  does  not  see  fit  to  add  them. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  find  the  explanation  of  the  common 
God's  Infinite  Good-    Call,  in  the  views  expounded  in  the  remarks 
ness  Regulated  by  Wis-    upon  the  design    of  the    sacrifice  of  Christ. 
^°"''-  The  student   was  there  advertised,  that  we 

should  find  another  apphcation  for  those  important  ideas.  That 
subject,  and  the  one  now  in  hand,  are  obviously  cognate  :  the 
purpose  of  God  in  Christ's  sacrifice,  and  in  His  offer  of  its  bene- 
fits, must  be  guided  by  the  same  attributes  of  wisdom,  benevo- 
lence and  righteousness.  We  there  saw,  that  the  executive 
volition  which  is  wise  and  good,  is  prompted  in  God,  (as  in  a 
lower  manner  in  any  righteous  creature,)  by  comprehensive 
deliberation  ;  and  is  not  the  result  of  an  insulated  principle,  but 
of  all  the  right  principles  of  the  Agent's  nature  harmonized 
under  His  best  wisdom.     We  saw  how  a  good  man  may  have 


558  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sympathy  with  a  calamity,  which  he  may  yet,  for  wise  reasons, 
freely  determine  not  to  relieve.  And  we  raised  the  question  : 
Since  he  really  has  that  sympathy,  why  may  he  not  give  candid 
expression  to  it  in  other  forms  than  acts  of  rescue  ?  Thus,  the 
good  and  consistent  human  magistrate  makes  overtures  of 
mercy  to  a  criminal  on  given  terms  :  and  yet  he  is  well  aware 
that  the  criminal's  malice  and  contumacy  are  such,  that  the 
terms  will  be  refused  ;  and  he  is  equally  fixed  in  his  mind  not 
to  degrade  the  majesty  of  the  law,  by  pardoning  on  any  lower 
terms.  No  one  charges  this  ruler  with  insincerity  or  folly.  Why 
may  not  our  God  do  the  parallel  thing  ?  We  have  seen  how  the 
extremists,  Arminian  and  ultra-Calvinist,  meet  in  a  common 
ground  of  cavil :  that  the  difference  is  ;  God  is  able  to  renew 
the  criminal's  heart,  so  as  to  ensure  his  complying  with  the 
requisite  terms  :  the  human  magistrate  is  not.  I  reply,  that 
while  God  has  the  d'jvamz,  the  spiritual  might,  adequate  to 
renew  Satan  or  Judas,  He  has  not  the  sanction  of  His  own 
comprehensive  wisdom  for  doing  it.  I  ask  with  emphasis  :  May 
not  Grod  see,  amidst  the  multifarious  relations  of  His  vast  king- 
dom, many  a  valid  reason  which  we  have  not  surmised,  for  deter- 
mining that  it  is  not  best  for  Him  to  do  a  certain  act,  to  which 
He  feels  His  power  competent  ?  To  deny  this  is  insane  arro- 
gance. The  Calvinist  need  not  fear,  lest  the  Arminian  here  tri- 
umph in  representing  God's  desires  as  crossed  by  the  invinci- 
bility of  the  creature's  perverse  free  will.  My  view  represents 
His  desires  and  actions  as  regulated  only  by  His  own  perfec- 
tions :  but  by  all  His  perfections  harmoniously  combined.  It 
may  perhaps  be  objected  farther,  that  such  a  picture  of  the 
co-action  of  God's  active  principles,  and  of  the  rise  of  His  voli- 
tions, cannot  be  correct ;  because  it  would  represent  His  pur- 
poses as  emerging  out  of  a  state  of  internal  struggle,  during 
which  God  would  be  drawn  different  ways  by  competing 
motives,  like  a  poor  mortal.  Such  a  picture,  they  exclaim,  is 
unworthy  both  of  the  majesty  and  blessedness,  and  the  immu- 
tability of  God.  The  sufficient  answer  is  contained  in  the 
remark  already  made  in  the  previous  lecture  :  That  God's  active 
principles  are  not  passions.  They  are  principles  of  action ;  but 
they  exist  in  Him  in  their  unchangeable  vigour,  without  agi- 
tation, and  without  passionate  access  or  recess.  Hence  their 
co-action  in  the  deliberations  of  the  infinite  Mind  are  without 
struggle.  That  this  may  be  so,  may  be  illustrated  in  some  small 
degree,  even  to  our  feeble  apprehension.  We  have  adduced 
the  example  of  the  great  Washington,  contemplating  the  fate 
of  Andre  with  profound  compassion,  and  yet  with  a  firm  and 
wise  determination  to  give  justice  its  awful  dues.  This  implied 
of  course,  some  struggle  in  Washington's  heart.  But  it  is 
equally  obvious,  that  had  it  been  the  lower  and  feeble  nature 
of  a  Gates  or  a  Schuyler,  (both  also  sincere  and  honest  patriots) 
which  was  called  to  this  solemn  task,  he  would  have  performed 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  559 

it  at  the  cost  of  much  greater  disturbance  to  his  equanimity. 
Why  would  this  have  occurred  ?  Not  because  their  natures 
were,  really,  more  compassionate  than  Washington's :  but 
because  his,  while  capable  of  a  more  profound  compassion  than 
theirs,  was  cast  in  a  grander  mould,  and  regulated  by  a  higher 
virtue  and  wisdom.  It  is  strength  which  gives  equanimity. 
Take  this  instance,  which  is  infinitesimally  humble,  beside  God's 
majesty  :  and  it  will  assist  us  to  apprehend  how  His  infinite  wis- 
dom may  regulate  the  several  infinite  activities  of  His  nature, 
absolutely  without  a  struggle.  And  let  the  student  bear  in 
mind,  that  my  attempt  is  not  to  bring  dt)wn  the  actions  of  the 
divine  Spirit  to  man's  comprehension  :  they  are  ineffable  :  but 
to  prevent  other  men  from  cramping,  within  the  trammels  of 
their  human  logic,  the  incomprehensible,  but  blessed,  workings 
■of  infinite  goodness. 

Fifth  :  When  we  assert  this  sincere  compassion  of  God  in 
His  common  calls  to  the  non-elect,  we  do 
CondhionTd.'^''^^'^^''''^'  not  attribute  to  Him  anything  futile,  or  in- 
sincere ;  because,  in  the  expressions  of  this 
compassion.  He  always  makes  an  implied  or  expressed  condi- 
tion :  that  they  shall  turn.  He  does  not  say  anywhere,  that 
He  has  any  desire  to  see  any  one  saved  while  continuing  a  rebel. 
Nor  does  He  say  anywhere,  that  it  is  His  unconditioned  purpose 
to  compel  all  to  turn.  But  He  says.  He  would  like  to  see  all 
saved  provided  they  all  turned.  So  that  His  will  in  the  uni- 
versal call  is  not  out  of  harmony  with  His  prescience.  And 
last :  God's  invitations  and  warnings  to  those  who.  He  foresees, 
will  reject  them,  are  the  necessary  expressions  of  His  perfec- 
tions. The  circumstance  that  a  given  sin  is  foreseen,  does  not 
rob  it  of  its  moral  character;  and  hence  should  constitute  no 
reason  why  a  righteous  God  shall  forbear  to  prohibit  and  warn 
against  it.  That  God  shall  yet  permit  creatures  to  commit  this 
sin  against  His  invitations,  is  therefore  just  the  old  question 
about  the  permission  of  evil.     Not  a  new  one. 


LECTURE  XLVII. 

EFFECTUAL  CALLING.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

5.  Who  is  the  Agent;  and  what  the  customary  Instrument  in  Effectual  CaUing? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  4,  (especially  §  23,  &c.)  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  i.  Dick, 
Lect.  65.     Knapp,  g  130,  131. 

6.  Prove,  against  Socinians  and  semi- Pelagians,  that  in  the  Effectual  Call,  regen- 
eration is  not  merely  by  moral  Suasion  of  truth  and  inducement ;  but  by  the  Super- 
natural Power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv,  Qu.  4,  (especially  §  28  to  end),  and  Qu.  6.  Hodge's 
TheoL,  pt.  iii,  ch.  14.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  i,  and  bk.  iv,  ch.  8.  Dick,  Lect.  65. 
Ridgley,  Qu.  67,  68,  So.  Presb.  Rev.  Art.  i,  of  July  and  Oct.  1877.  Knapp, 
I  132,  133.  Aristotle,  Nichomachian  Eihics,  bk.  ii,  ^  i.  Watson's  Theo. 
Inst.  ch.  24.     Dr.  Jas.  Woods,  "OldandNew  Theo." 

7.  Does  the  Holy  Ghost  work  Regeneration  immediately,  or  only  mediately 
through  the  Word  ? 

Turrettin,  as  above.  Alexander's  Religious  Experience,  Letters  5-6.  Dick, 
Lect  66.  Review  of  Hodge  So.  Presb.  Rev.,  April,  1877.  Chaufepie. 
Diet.  Hist,  et  Crit,  Art.  Pajon. 

npHE  Scriptures  always  speak  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  effi- 
cacious  Agent  of  effectual  calling.     "  Except  a  man  be 

born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit."  Jno.  iii  : 
J„,o?Re^"„lSr;    5-     "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth."  vi :  63. 

See,  also,  2  Cor.  iii  :  17  ;  Eph.  iv  :  30.  But 
this  proposition  will  be  supported  by  the  whole  subsequent 
argument.  It  is  also  very  important  that  we  assert,  against 
Mystics  and  Fanatics,  the  counterpart  truth  :  that  His  custo- 
mary instrument  (in  all  cases  except  the  redemption  of  infants 
and  idiots)  is  the  Word.  If  we  allow  any  other  standard  or 
instrumentality  of  regeneration  than  the  Word,  there  will  be  no 
barrier  to  the  confounding  of  every  crude  impulse  of  nature 
and  Satan,  with  those  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  work  of  grace 
is  the  work  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  Word  is  also  His  ;  and 
He  always  works  His  works  in  accordance  with,  and  through 
His  word,  because  He  is  a  wise  and  unchangeable  Agent. 
Such  is  the  uniform  teaching  of  Scripture,  confirmed  by  expe- 
rience. Christians  are  "born  again,  not  of  the  corruptible 
seed  :  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth 
and  abideth  forever."  i  Pet  i  :  23.  The  Holy  Ghost  renovates 
the  mental  vision  ;  the  word  of  God  alone  furnishes  the  lumin- 
ous medium  through  which  the  renovated  vision  sees.  Here 
is  the  only  safe  middle  ground  between  Rationalism  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Fanaticism  on  the  other.  To  give  up  the  first  truth 
is  to  surrender  the  whole  doctrines  of  grace.  To  forsake  the 
second  is  to  open  the  floodgates  to  every  wild  delusion. 

There  are  two  grades  of  Pelagian  view,  as  to  the  nature 

6.  Pelagian   and    and  agency  of  regeneration.     Both  regard  it 

semi-Pelagian  View  of    as  only  a  change  of  purpose  in  the  sinner  s 

Regeneration.  ^^^^  .  ^heieas  Calvinism  regards  it  as  a  rev- 

560 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  561 

olution  of  the  moral  dispositions  which  determine  the  purpose 
of  the  mind  ;  accompanied  with  an  enhghtening  of  the  under- 
standing in  spiritual  things.  The  ancient,  thorough  Pelagian 
taught  a  regeneration  produced,  in  the  baldest  sense,  by  mere 
moral  suasion — i.  e.,  by  the  mere  force  of  moral  inducements, 
operating  according  to  the  laws  of  mind.  In  his  mouth,  con- 
verting grace  meant  nothing  more  than  God's  goodness  in 
revealing  the  moral  inducements  of  the  Scriptures  ;  in  endow- 
ing man  with  reason  and  conscience,  and  in  providentially 
bringing  those  revealed  encouragements  into  contact  with  his 
sane  understanding.  See  Histories  of  Doctrines.  But  .the 
New  England  Pelagian  attributes  to  the  Holy  Ghost  some  indi- 
rect agency  in  presenting  moral  truths  with  increased  energy  to 
the  soul.  Still,  he  denies  a  proper  supernatural  agency  therein  ; 
teaches  that  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  only  suasive 
through  the  truth,  and  not  renovating  ;  and  makes  His  work  the 
same  generically,  only  vastly  stronger  in  degree,  with  that  of 
the  minister  who  holds  forth  the  gospel  to  his  fellow-men.  It 
was  said,  for  instance,  that  Dr.  Duffield  said  :  "  The  only  reason 
I  cannot  convert  a  sinner  with  gospel  truth,  like  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  that  I  am  not  as  eloquent  as  He  is."  !* 

Now,  if  we  disprove  this  higher  theory,  the  lower  is  of 
course  disproved  along  with  it.  But  we 
erly  Definedi^"^  ^°^"  prove  that  regeneration  is  not  a  mere  change 
of  the  human  purpose,  occurring  in  view  of 
motive  ;  but  a  supernatural  renovation  of  the  dispositions  which 
determine  the  moral  purpose,  and  of  the  understanding  in  the 
apprehension  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth ;  the  whole  resulting 
in  a  permanent  and  fundamental  conversion  in  the  actings  of 
the  whole  man  as  to  sin  and  holiness — the  flesh  and  God.  To 
such  a  change  the  human  will  is  utterly  inadequate  and  irrele- 
vant ;  because  the  change  goes  back  of  the  will.  It  is  therefore 
a  divine  and  almighty  work  of  the  Father  and  Son  through  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  Their  Agent.  And  this  conception  of  regene- 
ration is  in  strict  conformity  with  that  view  of  the  nature  of  the 
will,  which  we  saw  a  correct  psychology  dictate.  It  distin- 
guishes properly  between  motive  and  inducement,  the  former 
being  subjective,  the  latter  objective  ;  the  former  being  the 
efficient,  the  latter  only  the  occasion,  of  rational  volitions.  So,, 
our  view  recognizes  the  practical  truth,  that  the  subjective  dis- 


*You  will,  some  of  you,  recall  the  queer  statement  of  Woods,  in  his  "Old  and 
New  Theology,"  of  the  geometrical  illustration  of  conversion,  given  by  a  famous 
theologian  of  the  semi-Pelagian  school.  The  cross  is  the  centre  of  attraction.  The 
sinner  is  moving  around  it  in  a  semi-circle,  during  the  process  of  conversion,  under 
the  suasive  influence  of  gospel  truth.  This  finds  him,  at  first,  proceeding  along  the 
downward  limb  of  the  curve,  directly  towards  hell.  But  the  inducement  deflects  the 
sinner  more  and  more,  until  at  that  point  where  the  first  quadrant  ends,  the  down- 
ward motion  ceases,  and  an  upward  tendency  is  about  to  begin.  This  point  marks 
the  stage  of  regeneration.  As  gospel  inducement  still  continues  to  draw,  the  sinner 
pursues  more  and  more  of  an  upward  course.  This  quadrant  represents  the  progress 
of  sanctification,  at  the  end  of  which,  the  sinner  flies  off  at  a  tangent  to  heaven  I 

36* 


5^2  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

position  is  decisive  of  all  rational  volitions — i.  e.,  that  the  free 
agent  chooses  according  to  his  moral  nature,  because  his  own 
moral  nature  decides  how  he  shall  view  inducements.  And  we 
also  concur  with  that  practical  view,  which  regards  subjective 
character  as  a  permanent  and  uniform  cause,  communicating 
regularly  its  own  quality  to  the  series  of  moral  volition.  This 
character  is,  in  the  sinner,  carnal.  To  make  the  conduct  spiri- 
tual, the  character  must  be  renewed. 

(a)  Our  view  is   probably  proved   by  the   fact  that,  while 
Proved.  1st.  By  Man's    1^1^^    shows    SO    much    efficiency    in    all    his 

Failures  in  Moral  Rev-  physical  exploits,  especially  where  combined 
olutions.  •  Til-'  1         . 

power  is  applied,  his  moral  enterprises  are  so 

feeble  and  futile.  He  can  bridge  mighty  floods,  navigate  the 
trackless  seas,  school  the  elements,  renovate  the  surface  of  the 
globe  ;  but  how  little  can  he  do  to  ameliorate  moral  evils  by  all 
his  plans  !  Where  are  all  his  reformed  drunkards,  savages  civ- 
ilized, races  elevated,  without  divine  grace?  If  his  external 
works  of  moral  renovation  are  so  scanty,  we  may  expect  his 
internal  to  be  so. 

Every  instance  of  the  permanent  change  of  a  hardened 
sinner  to  godliness,  bears,  to  the  experienced  eye,  the  appear- 
ance of  a  power  above  man's  ;  because  we  see  so  few  men 
make  otherwise  a  radical  change  of  habits  and  principles,  after 
these  are  fully  formed.  The  wise  observer  of  the  world  will 
tell  you  that  few  men,  except  under  this  peculiar  power  of 
Christianity,  change  their  course  after  they  pass  the  age  of 
thirty  years.  Those  who  are  indolent  then,  do  not  become 
systematically  industrious.  Those  who  are  then  intemperate, 
rarely  become  sober.  The  radically  dishonest  never  become 
trustworthy.  It  is  also  happily  true,  that  good  principles 
and  habits  then  well  established,  usually  prove  permanent 
to  the  end  of  life.  But,  as  it  is  easier  for  feeble  man  to  degen- 
erate than  to  improve,  the  few  instances  in  which  this  rule  does 
not  hold,  are  cases  of  changes  from  the  better  to  the  worse. 
When,  therefore,  I  see,  under  the  gospel,  a  permanent  change 
of  a  hardened  sinner  for  the  better,  my  experience  inclines  me 
to  believe  that  he  has  felt  some  power  above  that  of  mere 
nature. 

(b)  I  argue  that  the  new  birth  is  the  exceeding  greatness 
and.  By  Different Ef-    o^  God's   power,    because    of    the    different 

fects  of  Truth  in  Same    effects  which  accompany  the  preaching   of 
"  ^^^  ^'  the  gospel  to  different  men,  and  to  the  same 

men  at  different  times.  Were  the  power  only  the  natural  influ- 
ence of  the  truth,  these  diverse  effects  could  not  be  explained 
consistently  with  the  maxim  that  "  like  causes  produce  like 
effects."  The  same  gospel-inducements  are  offered  to  a  con- 
gregation of  sinners,  and  "  some  believe  the  things  which  are 
spoken  and  some  believe  not."  It  is  not  always  the  most 
docile,  amiable,  or  serious  mind  that  yields ;  such  unbelievers 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  563 

often  remain  callous  to  its  appeals,  while  some  ignorant,  stub- 
born and  hardened  sinner  is  subdued.  How  is  this  ?  If  the 
whole  influence  were  in  the  truths  preached,  should  not  the 
effects  show  some-  regular  relation  to  the  cause  ?  Should  not 
the  truth  prevail  where  the  natural  obstacles  are  least,  if  it  pre- 
vailed at  all  ?  Why  do  we  see  cases  in  which  it  fails  before  the 
weaker,  and  triumphs  over  the  stronger  resistance?  It  is 
because,  in  one  case,  "  the  exceeding  greatness  of  God's 
power  "  is  behind  that  truth,  and  in  the  other  case,  is  absent. 

But  if  you  deny  the  sovereign  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  the  new  birth,  you  have  a  more  impracticable  case  to 
explain.  It  is  the  case  of  him  who  had  resisted  this  gospel  for 
twenty,  thirty,  or  fifty  years,  and  has  yet  been  subdued  by  it  at 
last.  If  the  truth  had  natural  power  within  itself  to  persuade 
this  soul,  why  did  it  not  effect  it  at  first?  If  it  lacked  that 
power,  how  does  it  come  to  effect  the  work  at  last,  after  so 
many  failures  ?  This  mystery  is  enhanced  by  two  great  facts. 
The  one  is,  that  the  futile  presentation  of  this  gospel-truth  for 
so  many  years  must,  in  accordance  with  the  well-known  law  of 
habit,  have  blunted  the  sensibilities  of  the  soul,  and  rendered 
the  story  of  redemption  trite  and  stale.  If  you  know  anything 
of  human  nature,  you  cannot  but  admit  this  result.  Repetition 
must  make  any  neglected  story  dull.  That  which  at  first  some- 
what excited  the  attention  and  sensibilities,  urged  so  often  in 
vain,  must  become  as 

"  Irksome  as  a  twice  told  tale, 
Vexing  the  dull  ear  of  a  drowsy  man." 

Familiarity  and  inattention  must  blunt  the  feelings  toward 
such  a  story.  The  man  who  first  approaches  Niagara  has  his 
whole  ear  filled  with  that  mighty,  sullen  roar  of  the  waters, 
which  shakes  the  very  ground  beneath  his  feet.  The  dwellers 
at  the  spot  are  so  habituated  to  it  by  use,  that  they  forget  to 
hear  it  at  all !  The  ingenuous  boy  almost  shudders  at  the  first 
sight  of  blood,  though  it  be  only  that  of  the  bird  he  has 
brought  down  in  his  sport.  See  that  person,  when  hardened  by 
frequent  scenes  of  carnage  and  death  into  the  rugged  soldier, 
insensible  to  the  fall  of  the  comrade  by  his  side,  and  planting 
his  foot  with  a  jest  upon  human  corpses,  as  he  mounts  to  the 
"  imminent,  deadly  breach." 

The  other  fact  that  you  must  take  into  the  account  is, 
that  while  the  sinner  is  growing  more  callous  to  sacred  truth 
by  its  neglect,  every  active  principle  of  ungodliness  within  him 
must  be  growing  by  its  indulgence.  Is  any  one  ignorant  of 
this  law,  that  a  propensity  indulged  is  thereby  strengthened  ? 
Need  I  bring  instances  to  prove  or  illustrate  it?  How  else 
does  any  man  grow  from  bad  to  worse  ;  how  does  the  temper- 
ate drinker  grow  into  a  drunkard,  the  card-player  into  a  gam- 
bler, save  by  the  force  of  this  law?  It  must  be  then,  that 
while  the  sinner  is  neglecting  the  gospel,  at  the  bidding  of 


564  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

ungodliness,  the  love  of  the  world,  avarice,  sensual  lusts,  self- 
will,  pride,  ambition,  false  shame,  with  every  evil  outward  habit 
are  growing  into  giant  strength. 

This,  then,  is  the  case  which  you  have  to  solve.  Here  is 
an  influence,  the  natural  force  of  sacred  truth,  which  was  fully 
plied  to  overcome  the  unbelief  of  the  young  heart,  w4th  every 
advantage  of  fresh  interest,  the  tenderness  of  maternal  love, 
the  gentle  and  venerable  authority  of  a  father  amidst  the  sweet 
sanctities  of  home  ;  plied  when  the  soul  was  still  unformed,  and 
in  the  plastic  gristle  of  its  childhood.  But  even  in  this  tender 
heart,  the  inborn  power  of  ungodliness  was  too  strong;  the 
application  utterly  failed.  But  now,  after  this  truth  has  been 
exhausted  of  its  power  by  twenty,  thirty,  or  it  may  be,  fifty 
years  of  useless  presentation ;  and  after  this  native  ungodliness, 
too  strong  in  its  infancy,  has  been  hardened  by  as  many  years 
of  sin  into  the  rugged  bone  of  manhood,  lo  !  the  powerless 
truth  suddenly  becomes  powerful  !  The  stubborn  sinner  list- 
ens, feels,  and  submits !  Natural  agencies  cannot  account  for 
this.  The  finger  of  God  is  there.  Let  me  suppose  a  parallel 
case.  Years  ago,  suppose,  when  the  trees  which  embower  this 
Seminary,  were  lithe  saplings,  and  I  in  the  vigor  of  my  first 
prime,  you  saw  me  lay  hold  of  one  of  them  with  my  hands, 
and  attempt  to  tear  it  from  its  seat.  But,  though  a  sapling,  it 
was  too  strong  for  me.  Now  years  have  rolled  around,  that 
tree  has  grown  to  a  giant  of  the  forest ;  and  I  return,  no  longer 
in  the  pride  of  youth,  but  a  worn  and  tottering  old  man ;  and 
you,  the  same  spectators,  are  here  again.  You  see  me  go  to 
that  very  tree,  and  attempt  to  wrench  it  from,  its  place.  You 
laugh  scornfully ;  you  say :  "  Does  the  old  fool  think  he  can 
pull  up  that  sturdy  oak  ?  He  was  unable  to  do  it  before,  when 
it  was  a  sapling,  and  he  was  strong."  Yes,  but  suppose  the 
tree  came  up  in  his  feeble  hand  ?  You  would  not  laugh  then ! 
You  would  stand  awe-struck,  and  say  :  "  Something  greater  than 
nature  is  here." 

And  so  say  I,  when  I  see  the  sturdy  old  sinner,  hardened 
by  half  a  century  of  sins  and  struggles  against  the  truth,  bow 
before  the  same  old  gospel  story,  which  he  had  so  often 
spurned.  When  I  see  the  soul  which  was  by  nature  dead  in 
trespasses  and  .'-ins,  and  which  has  been  stiffening  and  growing 
more  chill,  under  the  appliances  of  human  instruction  and  per- 
suasion, at  the  last,  when  the  zeal  and  hope  and  strength  of 
man  are  almost  spent,  suddenly  quickened  under  our  hands,  I 
know  that  it  is  "  the  exceeding  greatness  of  God's  power  (not 
ours)  according  to  the  working  of  His  mighty  power  which  He 
wrought  in  Christ  when  He  raised  Him  from  the  dead." 

Does  any  one  attempt  to  escape  this  conclusion  by  saying 
that  the  new  efficacy  of  the  truth  may  have  been  derived  from 
the  superior  force  or  eloquence  of  the  orator  who  preached  it  on 
this  occasion,  or  from  the  advantage  of  some  such  circumstance? 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  565 

I  have  two  answers.  One  is,  that  there  are  no  circumstances 
so  auspicious,  and  no  eloquence  so  persuasive  as  those  which 
this  soul  has  already  resisted  as  an  impenitent  child.  What 
eloquence  is  equal  to  that  of  the  Christian  mother,  as  she  draws 
her  beloved  son  to  her  knee,  and  tells  him  the  history  of  Jesus' 
love,  in  accents  tremulous  with  unutterable  tenderness  ?  The 
other  answer  is,  that  the  plain  facts  and  persuasives  of  the  gos- 
pel are,  in  themselves  too  infinite  to  receive  any  appreciable 
weight  from  the  trivial  incidents  of  a  perspicuous  statement  and 
an  eloquent  tongue.  In  the  simple  story  of  the  cross,  with 
divine  love  there  dying  a  shameful  and  bitter  death  for  its 
guilty  enemies  ;  in  the  offer  of  a  heaven  of  everlasting  and 
unspeakable  bliss,  and  the  threat  of  an  eternal  and  remediless 
hell ;  even  if  they  be  but  intelligibly  lisped  in  the  feeble  voice 
of  a  child,  there  should  be  a  weight  so  immense,  that  beside  it, 
all  the  enlargements  of  human  rhetoric  would  be  as  naught 

Man's  skill  of  speech  does  not  weigh  where  Christ  and 
eternity  prove  too  light.  It  is  as  though  a  great  mountain  had 
been  put  in  the  balance  against  the  mightier  strength  of  ungod- 
liness, but  could  not  counterpoise  it.  And  then  I  come  and 
with  my  puny  hand,  cast  one  little  stone  at  the  mountain's  base 
and  say  :  "  There  ;  I  have  added  to  its  weight ;  it  will  no 
longer  prove  too  light."  Such  folly  is  it  to  expect  that  man 
can  convert.  Where  the  story  of  the  cross  has  been  resisted, 
naught  can  do  it,  '■  save  the  exceeding  greatness  of  His  power." 

But  (c) :  when  w^e  consider  what  the  change  in  the  new 

birth  is,  and  what  the  heart  to  be  changed  is, 

3d    Nature  Cannot     ^^^  plainly  scc  that  the  work  is    above  nature. 

Revolutionize  Itselt.         ^^,    ^         ,  -^   .  ,         .  ,  ,  , 

The  soul  of  a  man  has  its  natural  laws,  as  truly 
as  the  world  of  matter.  In  both  worlds,  we  learn  these  laws  by  the 
uniformity  of  our  experience.  Because  all  men  have  ever  seen 
water  run  down  hill,  therefore,  we  say  that  this  is  the  law  of  its 
gravitation.  And,  therefore,  when  the  waters  of  Jordan  stood  on 
a  heap  while  the  ark  of  God  and  Israel  passed  through  its  channel, 
men  knew  it  was  a  miracle.  The  sun  and  the  moon  have 
always  proceeded  regularly  from  their  rising  to  their  setting. 
Hence,  when  their  motion  ceased  at  the  word  of  Joshua,  it  was 
plainly  a  miracle. 

Now  universal  observation  proves  that  ungodliness  is  the 
natural  law  of  man's  soul,  as  the  Scriptures  declare.  This  heart 
is,  in  different  degrees  and  phases,  universal  among  natural 
men,  in  all  races  and  ages,  under  all  religions  and  forms  of 
civilization ;  whatever  religious  instincts  men  may  have,  and  to 
whatever  pious  observances  they  may  be  driven  by  remorse,  or 
self-righteousness,  or  spiritual  pride.  We  percieve  that  this 
disposition  of  soul  begins  to  reveal  itself  in  all  children  as  early 
as  any  intelligent  moral  purpose  is  disclosed.  We  observe  that 
while  it  is  sometimes  concealed,  or  turned  into  new  directions 
by  the  force  of  circumstances,  it  is  always  latent,  and  is  a  uni- 


566  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

versal  and  controlling  principle  of  conduct  towards  God.  We 
find  that  it  holds  its  evil  sway  in  spite  of  all  light,  and  rational 
conviction  in  men's  own  minds,  and  of  inducements  drawn  from 
conscience  and  heaven  and  hell,  which  ought  to  be  omnipotent. 
Such  is  every  man's  inward  history,  until  grace  reverses  his 
career. 

Now  I  claim  that  these  facts  of  experience  authorize  me  in 
regarding  this  ungodly  disposition  in  man  as  natural  and  funda- 
mental. How  do  we  learn  more  certainly  that  any  other  native 
trait  or  affection  belongs  to  the  constitution  of  his  soul?  It  is 
plain  that  since  Adam's  fall,  ungodliness  is  as  radically  a  native 
disposition  of  man's  soul,  as  the  desire  of  happiness,  or  the  fear 
of  pain.     (John  iii  :  6.) 

But  here  I  remind  you,  that  no  man  ever  reverses  or  totally 
eradicates,  or  revolutionizes  any  material  or  fundamental  dis- 
position of  soul,  by  his  own  purpose  or  choice  ;  nor  can  any 
mere  inducement  persuade  him  to  do  so.  Look  and  see. 
These  principles  may  be  bent,  they  may  be  concealed,  they 
may  be  turned  into  new  channels  by  self-interest,  or  by  educa- 
tion, or  by  restraint.  The  same  selfishness  which  in  the  season 
of  heady  youth  prompted  to  prodigality,  may  in  thrifty  age 
inspire  avarice ;  but  it  is  never  eradicated  by  natural  means. 
Hunger  is  a  natural  appetite.  Should  a  physician  tell  you  that 
he  had  a  patient  with  a  morbid  appetite,  but  that  by  his  elo- 
quent pictures  of  the  dangers  of  relapse  and  death  from  the 
imprudent  indulgence  in  food,  he  had  actually  caused  the  man 
no  longer  to  be  hungry  ;  you  would  tell  him,  "  Sir,  you  deceived 
yourself;  you  have  only  persuaded  him  to  curb  his  hunger;  he 
feels  it  just  as  before."  Suppose  this  physician  told  you,  that 
he  had  plied  his  patient's  mind  with  such  arguments  for  the 
utility  of  a  certain  nauseous  drug,  that  it  had  actually  become 
sweet  to  his  palate?  Your  good  sense  would  answer:  "No, 
sir;  it  is  in  itself  bitter  to  him  as  before;  you  have  only  induced 
him  by  the  fear  of  death — a  more  bitter  thing — to  swallow  it  in 
spite  of  its  odiousness  ?  " 

Try  my  assertion  again,  by  some  of  the  instinctive  pro- 
pensities of  the  mind,  instead  of  these  animal  appetites,  and 
you  will  find  it  equally  true.  The  distinction  of  nieiivi  and 
tuuin  is  universal  in  human  minds,  and  the  love  of  one's  own 
possessions  is  instinctive  in  men's  hearts.  Can  you  then  argue 
or  persuade  a  man  into  a  genuine  and  absolute  indifference  to 
his  own  ?  This  was  one  of  the  things  which  monasticism  pro- 
fessed to  do  :  monks  were  required  to  take  the  three  vows  of 
"  obedience,  chastity  and  poverty."  Many  devout  and  super- 
stitious persons,  upon  entering  monasteries,  reduced  themselves 
to  absolute  and  perpetual  poverty,  by  giving  their  goods  to  the 
Church  or  the  poor,  and  foreswore  forever  the  pursuits  by 
which  money  is  acquired.  But  was  the  natural  love  of  posses- 
sion really  eradicated  ?     The  notorious  answer  was.  No.    Every 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  5^7 

one  of  these  monks  was  as  ready  as  any  other  man  to  contest 
the  posession  of  his  own  cell,  his  own  pallet,  his  own  gown  and 
cowl,  his  own  meager  food.  And  for  the  common  wealth  of 
their  monastery  and  order,  they  uniformly  contended  with  a 
cunning  and  greediness  which  surpassed  all  others  ;  until  they 
engrossed  to  themselves  half  the  wealth  of  Europe. 

The  love  of  applause  is  native  to  man.  Can  reasoning  or 
persuasion  truly  extinguish  it  ?  These  may  correct,  direct,  or 
conceal  this  passsion  ;  they  can  do  no  more.  The  hermit  pro- 
fessed to  have  extinguished  it.  He  hid  himself  in  deserts  and 
mountains  from  the  society  of  men,  and  pretended  that  he  was 
dead  to  their  praise  and  their  attractions,  dead  to  all  but 
heaven.  But  he  who  sought  out  this  hermit  and  conversed 
with  him,  soon  detected  in  him  an  arrogance  and  spiritual  pride 
above  those  of  all  others  :  and  the  chief  reason  why  he  was 
content  to  dwell  in  savage  solitudes,  was  that  the  voice  of  fancy 
brought  to  his  soul  across  the  wastes  which  sundered  him  irom 
the  haunts  of  men,  their  applause  for  his  sanctity,  in  strains 
sweeter  to  his  pride  than  the  blare  of  bugles  and  the  shouts  of 
the  multitude. 

I  return,  then,  to  my  point.  There  is,  there  can  be,  no 
case,  in  which  mere  inducements  work  in  man  a  permanent  pur- 
pose, contrary  to  the  natural  dispositions  of  his  soul.  But 
ungodliness  is  a  native,  a  universal,  a  radical  propensity. 
Hence,  when  we  see  such  a  revolution  in  this  as  the  Gospel 
requires  in  the  new  birth,  we  must  believe  that  it  is  above 
nature.  This  great  change  not  only  reforms  particular  vices, 
but  revolutionizes  their  original  source,  ungodliness.  It  not 
only  causes  the  renewed  sinner  to  submit  to  obedience,  as  the 
bitter,  yet  necessary  medicine  of  an  endangered  soul ;  it  makes 
him  prefer  it  for  itself,  as  his  daily  bread.  It  not  only  refrains 
from  sin  which  is  still  craved  ;  as  the  dyspeptic  refuses  to  him- 
self the  dainties  for  which  he  longs,  lest  his  indulgence  should 
be  punished  with  the  agonies  of  sickness ;  it  hates  sin  for  its 
own  sake.  The  holy  and  thorough  submission  to  God's  will, 
which  the  convert  before  dreaded  and  resisted,  he  now  loves  and 
approves.  Nothing  less  than  this  is  a  saving  change.  For 
God's  command  is  :  "  My  son,  give  me  thine  heart."  He 
requireth  truth  in  the  inward  parts,  and  in  the  hidden  parts  He 
shall  make  us  to  know  wisdom.  Saith  the  Saviour;  "Either 
make  the  tree  good  and  his  fruit  good,  or  else  make  the  tree 
corrupt  and  his  fruit  corrupt."  Such  is  the  change  which  makes 
the  real  Christian. 

This  is  also  more  than  an  argument  of  experience.     By  all 

sound    mental    science,    man's    moral    spon- 

of?he  wm''^^"*  ^'^^    taneity,  while  real,  puts  itself  forth  according 

to  a  law.     That  law  is  found   in  the   natural 

state  of  his  dispositions  :  i.   e.,  the  dispositions  direct  the   will. 

Man     is     free.        His     soul    is     (wherever     responsible)    self- 


ures. 


568  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

determined,  but  it  is  the  dispositions  which  determine  the  will. 
Now,  it  is  preposterous  to  expect  the  will  to  renovate  the  origi- 
nal dispositions ;  the  effect  to  determine  its  own  cause.  Nor 
can  the  presentation  of  inducement  alone  change  those  dispo- 
sitions, because  the  influence,  which  external  objects  shall  have 
as  inducements,  is  itself  dependent  on  the  state  of  the  disposi- 
tions. For  illustration  :  What  would  be  thought  of  an  attempt 
to  revolutionize  the  tastes  of  the  palate  for  the  sweet,  by  pre- 
senting the  bitter  as  attractive  ?  It  is  the  state  of  that  palate 
by  nature  which  determines  the  attraction  to  be  in  the  sweet, 
and  only  repulsion  in  the  bitter,  A  direct  physiological  agent 
must  be  applied. 

(d.)     We   argue  this   truth  from  the  tenour  of  Scripture. 

First :  man's  natural  condition  is  said  to  be 
i-es^   '  ^"^^  ^"^^      ^^"    one  of  blindness,  of  deadness,  of  impotency, 

of  bondage,  of  stony-heartedness.  Rev.  iii : 
17;  Eph.  ii :  i;  Rom.  v  :  6;  Acts  viii :  23;  Ezek.  xi :  19. 
Now,  these  are  figures  ;  but  if  there  is  any  accuracy  or  justice 
in  the  Bible  use  of  figures,  they  must  be  incompatible  with  the 
idea  that  light  alone  causes  vision  in  the  blind  eye,  or  truth  and 
inducement  alone,  motion  in  the  dead,  bound,  helpless  soul. 
Next:  the  proper,  supernatural  character  of  regeneration  is 
proved  by  the  Bible  accounts  of  the  work  itself.  It  is  a  new 
creation.  Ps.  li :  10;  Eph.  ii :  10.  A  new  birth.  Jno.  iii :  5; 
Titus  iii  :  5.  A  resurrection  from  death.  Eph.  ii :  1-4,  5.  A 
giving  of  a  fleshly  in  place  of  a  stony  heart.  Ezek.  xxxvi :  26. 
An  opening  of  blind  eyes.  2  Cor.  iv:  6.  Here  again  the  crea- 
ture cannot  create  itself,  the  child  beget  itself,  the  dead  body 
re-animate  itself,  the  stony  heart  change  itself,  the  darkness 
illuminate  itself  at  the  prompting  of  inducements.  An  external 
and  almighty  power  is  requisite.  Again  do  we  urge  that  if 
these  tropes  are  not  false  rhetoric  (which  none  can  charge  on 
the  Holy  Ghost  without  profanity)  they  cannot  convey  less 
meaning  than  this:  that  in  this  change  an  external  power  is 
exerted  on  the  soul,  which  the  latter  can  have  no  share  in 
originating,  even  as  the  material,  however  susceptible  of  becom- 
ing an  organism,  cannot,  as  material,  participate  in  the  initial, 
fashioning  act.  We  find  a  third  and  large  class  of  Scriptures, 
which  speak  of  the  renewing  grace  as  in  order  to  the  charac- 
teristic acts  of  conversion.  Such  are  Ps.  cxix :  18.  Prov.  xvi : 
I.  Jer.  xxxi :  ig  ;  xxxii :  40.  Ezek.  xxxvi:  27.  Acts  xiii  : 
48;  xvi:  14,  Jno.  vi :  44,45.  Phil,  ii :  13.  According  to  the 
first  of  these  texts,  the  opening  of  the  eyes  is  in  order  to  vision. 
Then  the  light,  which  enters  by  vision,  cannot  be  the  original, 
opening  agent.  Again,  we  have  a  number  of  Scriptures,  in 
which  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  working  in  us  is  distinguish- 
ed from  the  Word,  See  i  Cor,  ii :  4,  5,  i  Thess.  i :  5,  6.  i 
Cor.  iii :  6,  9.  Last :  The  immediate  operation  of  God  is 
asserted  in  sundry   places,  in  the  most  discriminating  forms  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  569 

speech  possible.  Such  are  Jno.  i:  12,  13.  Eph.  i:  19,  20, 
and  ii :  10.  Further  Scriptural  and  logical  proofs  will  appear 
under  the  next  head ;  which  will  reinforce  the  present  argu- 
ment, while    bearing  especially   upon  their  own  proposition, 

(e.)If  regeneration  were  by  moral  suasion,  man  would  be 
his  own  saviour  in  a  sense,  excluded  by  the 
seq'uenLf^"'  ""^^  Scriptures:  as  in  i  Cor.  iv  :  7.  If  it  were 
by  moral  suasion,  of  course  regenerating 
grace  would  always  be  vincible  ;  and,  consequently,  believers 
would  have  no  sufficient  warrant  to  pray  to  God  for  salvation. 
There  would  be  only  a  probability  at  best,  that  God  could  save 
them  ;  and  to  the  mind  taking  an  impartial  survey  of  the  relat- 
ive numbers  who  have  ever  resisted  the  Gospel,  that  probability 
would  not  appear  strong.  If  the  change  were  by  moral  suasion 
only,  we  should  have  no  difference  of  kind,  between  this  divine 
work  and  the  human  work  of  the  teacher  in  training  his  pupils 
to  right  habits,  and  the  temperance  lecturer  in  persuading  peo- 
ple away  from  drunkenness.  Can  any  one  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  mean  no  more  than  this  by  all  their  strong  assertions 
of  the  divine  power  in  effectual  calling  ?  But  worse  than  this, 
we  should  leave  no  generic  difference  between  the  renewing 
work  of  God  and  the  seductive  work  of  the  devil.  He  decoys 
men  to  their  ruin,  by  the  suasive  influence  of  objective  induce- 
ments. God  allures  them  to  salvation  by  the  suasive  influence 
of  an  opposite  sort  of  inducements.  Thus  we  should  degrade 
God's  almighty  work  of  grace,  into  an  equal  contention  between 
Him  and  His  doomed  rebel  slave,  Satan,  in  which  the  latter 
succeeds  at  least  as  often  as  God ! 

7.  There  is  a  sense  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  is  said  to  ope- 
Is  the  Operation  of  ^^te  regeneration  only  mediately,  through  the 
the  Spirit  Mediate?  truth,  which  is  held  not  by  Pelagians,  but  by 
Dick's  View.  Calvinists. 

But  that  we  may  do  no  injustice,  let  us  distinguish.  Among 
those  who  explain  depravity  and  regeneration  by  Gospel  light, 
there  appear  to  be  four  grades  of  opinion.  The  lowest  is  that 
of  the  Pelagian,  who  denies  all  evil  habitus  of  will,  regards 
regeneration  as  a  mere  self-determination  to  a  new  purpose  of 
living,  and  holds  that  it  is  wrought  simply  by  the  moral  suasion 
of  the  truth.  This  virtually  leaves  out  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
second  is  that  of  the  semi-Pelagian,  who  holds  that  the  will  is 
not  indeed  dead  in  sin,  but  that  it  is  greatly  corrupted  by  evil 
desires,  cares  of  this  world,  bad  example,  and  evil  habits  {co7i- 
suetudines  not  habitus).  Hence,  Gospel  truth  never  engages  the 
soul's  attention  strongly  enough  to  exert  an  efficacious  moral 
suasion,  until  the  Holy  Ghost  calms  and  fixes  the  mind  upon  it 
by  His  gracious,  suasive  influence.  The  truth,  thus  gaining 
access  to  the  soul,  regenerates  it.  The  third  class,  disclaiming 
all  semi-Pelagianism,  hold  that  the  truth  ought  to,  and  would 
control  the  will,  if  clearly  and  fully  seen ;  but  that  in  virtue  of 


570  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  natural  blindness  of  the  understanding  (which  they  regard 
as  the  source  of  depravity)  the  truth  cannot  be  thus  seen,  until 
the  mind  is  divinely  illuminated ;  and  this  illumination,  a  true, 
gracious,  spiritual  and  efficacious  work,  is  regeneration.  As  soon 
as  that  is  done,  the  truth  spiritually  seen,  revolutionizes  the  will 
by  its  natural  power;  for  the  will  must  always  follow  the  preva- 
lent dictate  of  the  understanding.  Such  was  most  probably 
the  scheme  of  Claude  Pajon.  The  fourth  class  is  that  of  Dr. 
Alexander,  Dr.  Dick,  and  we  presume,  of  Dr.  Hodge.  Holding 
that  the  rudiments  of  our  depravity  are  in  the  blinded  under- 
standing primarily,  and  in  the  perverted  will  derivatively,  they 
also  hold  that  illumination  is  regeneration  ;  but  they  add  that, 
in  order  for  this  illumination,  a  supernatural  operation  on  the 
mind  itself  is  necessary.  And  that  operation  is  the  causative 
source  of  conversion.  This  distinguishes  their  scheme  from 
that  of  Pajon.  This  also  saves  their  orthodoxy  ;  yet,  we  repeat, 
it  seems  to  us  an  inconsistent  orthodoxy  in  one  particular.  We 
ask  them :  Is  that  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost — 
that  prerequisite  of  illumination — the  sovereign  and  immediate 
revolution  in  the  habitus  of  the  will  ?  And  they  answer,  No ;' 
for  that  would  imply  the  view  which  we  hold,  and  they  disclaim 
it,  as  to  the  radical  source  of  moral  quality  in  thf  soul.  What 
then  is  the  operation  ?  They  reply  :  We  do  not  know ;  it  is 
inscrutable,  being  back  of  consciousness.  But  to  us  it  appears, 
that  if  illumination  of  the  understanding  is  the  whole  direct  effi- 
ciency of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regeneration,  it  is  more  natural 
and  consistent  to  stop  where  Pajon  stops,  with  a  mediate  con- 
version through  the  truth. 

Another  consequence  of  this  view  must  be  to   modify  the 

definition    of  saving    faith.      If  blindness  of 

Consequences.  ^j^^^j  j^   ^^^    ultimate    element    of    spiritual 

death,  and  illumination  the  primary  element  in  regeneration, 
then  faith  ought  to  be  defined,  as  Dr.  Alexander  does  (Relig. 
Exp.)  as  being  simply,  a  hearty  mental  conviction  of  truth. 
A  third  result  must  be  to  decide  the  order  in  which  repentance 
and  faith  are  related  in  their  generics.  From  the  same  prem- 
ises it  must  follow,  that  faith  is  in  order  to  repentance,  instead 
of  repentance  being  implicit  in  the  first  movement  of  faith  and 
motive  thereto,  as  Scripture  seems  to  teach.  This  question, 
then,  is  by  no  means  a  mere  logomachy,  or  a  psychological  curi- 
osity. It  carries  grave  results.  These  divines  would  by  no 
means  teach  that  regeneration  is  not  a  divine,  supernatural  and 
invincible  work  of  grace.  But  they  suppose  that  the  essential 
change  is  in  the  illumination  of  the  understanding,  which  God's 
Spirit  indeed  almightily  effects;  but,  to  effect,  which,  nothing 
more  is  needed  than  to  secure  for  the  truth  a  true  spiritual 
apprehension  by  the  understanding.  The  truth  being  truly 
apprehended,  they  suppose  the  renovation  of  the  will  follows  as 
a     necessary    result,    without    further     supernatural    agency;. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  57 1 

because,  according  to  our  Calvinistic  psychology,  the  soul's  emo- 
tions are  governed  by  its  views  of  the  objects  thereof;  and  the 
will  always  follows  the  latest  and  most  decisive  conviction  of  the 
understanding.  They  claim  the  order  of  phrases  in  the  Cate- 
chism, question  31.  They  sometimes  describe  the  alternative 
doctrine,  as  teaching  that  depravity  is  in  the  feelings  as  distin- 
guished from  the  intelligence  ;  that  the  only  inability  of  the 
sinner  is  his  disinclination  to  good,  that  the  understanding  fol- 
lows the  will;  instead  of  the  will's  following  the  understanding, 
that  regeneration  is  only  a  change  in  the  feelings  ;  and  that  it 
affects  only  a  part  (the  emotive)  and  not  the  whole  of  the  soul. 
Much  stress  is  laid  by  them  on  the  fact,  that  the  soul  is  a 
monad,  and  its  faculties  not  divisible  parts,  but  only  modes  of 
function  in  the  monadic  spirit ;  that  both  depravity  and  regene- 
ration are  not  by  patches,  but  of  the  soul  as  a  soul. 

But  we  beg  leave  to   re-state   our  view   in   our  own  way. 

^  .  ^  The  soul  is  a  unit,  a  monad,  not  constituted. 

Definition   of    Doc-  i.      •    i  i.i  •  c  1.  u 

tj.j;^g  as  material  things  are,  ot  parts,  or  members  ; 

but  endowed  with  faculties  which  are  distinct 
modes  of  its  indivisible  activity.  These,  according  to  the  psy- 
chology of  the  Bible  and  of  common  sense,  fall  into  the  three 
divisions  of  intelligence,  will,  and  sensibility — the  latter  class 
being  passive  powers.  By  the  word  "  will,"  in  this  discussion, 
we  mean,  not  the  specific  power  of  volition,  but  that  which  the 
Reformed  divines  and  our  Confession  mean  by  it,  the  whole 
active  power  of  man's  spontaneity  ;  what  Sir  William  Hamil- 
ton terms  "the  conative  powers;"  i.  e.  the  whole  faculty  of 
active  desire  and  purpose.  While  the  soul  is  simply  passive  only 
in  its  sensibilities,  and  its  functions  of  intelligence  are  its  own 
self-directed  functions,  yet  it  is  by  its  will,  or  conative  powers, 
that  it  is  an  agent,  or  puts  forth  its  spontaneity.  Now,  the  soul 
is  depraved  as  a  soul;  and  is  regenerated  as  a  soul;  not  by 
patches  or  parts,  seeing  it  has  no  parts.  But  we  conceive  that 
this  obvious  fact  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  proposition,  that 
sin  (or  holiness)  affects  the  soul  as  to  one  of  its  faculties  more 
primarily  than  the  others.  And  let  us  remark  here  once  for  all, 
that  it  is  entirely  inconsistent  in  Dr.  Hodge,  to  object  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  soul  to  those  who  think  with  us,  that  sin  affects 
the  soul  rudimentally  in  the  faculty  of  will,  and  consequentially 
in  those  of  understanding  and  sensibility ;  when  he  himself 
teaches,  vice  versa,  that  sin  affects  it  rudimentally  in  the  faculty 
of  intelligence,  and  consequentially  in  those  of.  will  and  sensi- 
bility. For,  if  the  fact  that  the  soul  is  a  unit  refutes  us,  it 
equally  refutes  him.  Both  opinions  would  in  that  case  be  out 
of  the  question  equally,  and  the  debate  impossible.  Again: 
Dr.  Hodge,  and  those  who  think  with  him,  dwell  much  on  the 
complexity. of  the  soul's  acts,  as  involving  at  once  two  or  more 
of  its  faculties  or  modes  of  function.  They  tell  us  that  an  act 
of  understanding  accompanies  every  act  of  desire  or  choice. 


572  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

True.  But  they  themselves  go  on  to  assert  a  relation  of  causa- 
tion between  the  intellective  element  and  the  conative  element, 
as  to  the  production,  or  rise  of  the  concrete  act  of  soul.  Why, 
then,  may  not  we  assign  a  causative  relation  to  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two  elements,  as  to  the  moral  quality  of  that 
concrete  act  of  soul  ?  We  shall  find  the  divines  we  indicate, 
(as  Chalmers,  A.  Alexander,  and  Hodge,)  when  hardly  bestead 
to  sustain  their  peculiar  views  on  this  point,  resorting  very 
freely  to  the  statements,  that  the  soul  is  a  unit ;  that  it  is  de-^ 
praved  or  regenerated  as  a  unit ;  that  -it  acts  as  a  unit ;  that  it 
performs  one  concrete  function  often  through  two  or  more 
faculties,  which  act  not  separately  as  members,  but  only  distin- 
guishably  as  modes  of  function.  We  repeat,  all  this  is  granted  ; 
but  it  is  irrelevant.  For  it  would,  if  it  proved  anything  in  the 
case,  as  much  preclude  the  one  causative  order  as  the  other.  It 
would  be  as  unreasonable  to  say  "  the  understanding  guides  the 
will,"  as  to  say  "  the  will  sways  the  understanding."  Let  tliis 
be  remembered. 

We  have  thus  disencumbered  the  issue  which  we  wish  to 
examine.  It  is  this :  In  defining  depravity,  are  we  to  place  the 
rudimentary  element  of  the  sinful  nature,  in  the  blinded  under- 
standing, misleading  the  spontaneity,  and  thus  qualifying  the 
soul  as  a  whole  morally  evil  ?  Such  is  the  view  of  the  divines 
named.  Or,  are  we  to  find  it  rudimentally  in  the  perverted 
habitus  of  the  will,  causatively  corrupting  and  blinding  the 
understanding,  and  thus  qualifying  the  soul  as  a  whole  morally 
evil?  Such  is  our  understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the 
Reformed  theology. 

In  support  of  this,  we  advance  this  simple  argument.     By 
its  function  of  intelligence  the  soul  sees  ;  by 
*         ■  its  will  it  acts.     Now,  does  not  common  sense 

teach  us,  that  moral  responsibility  attaches  to  those  acts  and 
states  of  soul  which  it  puts  forth  from  itself,  by  its  sponta- 
neity, more  primarily  than  to  those  with  which  it  is  affected  by 
causes  out  of  itself?  Witness  the  fact,  that  multitudes  of  per- 
cepts and  concepts  affect  our  minds,  without  any  movement  of 
desire  or  volition  whatever  ;  the  former  from  objective  sources, 
the  latter  from  the  instinctive  law  of  suggestion.  This  is  the 
decisive  feature  which,  according  to  common  sense,  forbids  our 
regarding  the  cognitive  acts  of  the  soul  as  those  by  which  it  is 
primarily  qualified  with  moral  character. 

It  is  true,  that  conscience  is  the  faculty,  which  is  our  moral 
guide;  but  then  our  moral  quality  as  persons  is  in  our  con- 
formity or  enmity  to  that  guidance.  What  is  it,  in  us,  that  is 
conformed  or  opposed  to  that  guidance?  Primarily,  the  will. 
And  this  brings  our  debate,  it  appears  to  us,  up  to  that  scriptu- 
ral test,  which  is  the  decisive  one.  It  so  happens  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  given  us  an  exact  definition  of  the  idea  of  sin, 
*//  d-imozla  iaziv  /y  di^oiuo.,     (i  John  iii  :  4,)  which  our  Catechism 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  573- 

imitates.  The  vofio^,  the  standard  is,  first,  the  law  of  our  moral 
nature  written  on  our  hearts  by  our  Creator ;  and,  secondly,  His 
revealed  precepts  taught  to  our  intellects.  The  sin  consists, 
according  to  St.  John,  in  lack  of  conformity  to  that  standard. 
We  repeat  the  question  :  What  is  it  in  sinful  man  which  is  not 
conformed  to  that  standard  ?  Every  sinner's  consciousness 
answers ;  partially  the  reason,  but  chiefly  and  primarily  the 
will ;  and  thence,  consequentially,  the  animal  appetites  and 
bodily  members.  This  scriptural  view  is  confirmed  by  one 
remark  :  Let  any  one  collect  as  many  as  he  can,  of  those  acts 
of  men,  to  which  the  Scriptures  and  theologians  appeal,  as  a 
posteriori  proofs  of  native  depravity,  and  he  will  find  that  they 
all  fall  under  this  common  predication — that  in  them  the  will 
opposes  itself  obstinately  to  the  soul's  own  moral  judgments. 
This,  in  fine,  is  the  analytic  statement  of  that  universal  fact,  in 
which  the  moral  disorder  and  ruin  of  man's  soul  manifests  itself. 

The  reasonings  which  we  have  attempted  to  answer  seem 
to  us  to  involve  this  illusion  ;  that  because  man  is  a  reasonable 
agent,  his  spontaneity  is  but  a  modification  of  his  reason.  But 
is  this  so  ?  Is  not  this  sufficiently  refuted,  by  the  fact  which 
Dr.  Hodge  cites  against  us  ;  that  other  creatures  have  a  sponta- 
neity, which  have  no  reason  ?  In  truth,  spontaneity  is  an  ulti- 
mate fact  of  human  consciousness,  and  an  ultimate  power  of 
the  soul,  as  much  so  as  reason.  '  It  is  co-ordinate  in  primariness 
and  simplicity  with  the  power  of  reason.  It  has  its  own  origi- 
nal habitus,  its  "  disposition,"  which  re-acts  on  the  reason  as 
truly  as  it  is  acted  on.  Against  this  view  some  may  cry  out : 
"  Then  the  action  of  a  man^s  spontaneity  might  be  no  more  a 
rational  action,  than  the  pulsation  of  his  heart !"  We  reply  : 
The  instance  is  unfair ;  because  the  will  is  not  a  separate 
member  like  that  muscle  called  "  heart"  in  the  body  ;  but  it  is 
a  mode  of  function  of  the  soul,  a  spiritual  unit.  And  that  soul 
which  wills  is  a  rational  unit.  So  that  all  action  of  will  is  the 
action  of  a  rational  agent.  But  we  concede  that  spontaneity  is 
sometimes  unconsciously  irrational ;  and  that  is  lunacy.  Often- 
tim_es  it  is  contra  rational ;  and  that  is  sinfulness.  Sometimes, 
by  God's  grace,  we  find  it  truly  conformed  to  reason ;  and  that 
is  holiness. 

But  the  favorite  plea  of  the  fathers  who  differ  with  us,  is 
that  it  is  the  recognized  doctrine  of  all  sound 
Arise.^^  °'^^  pinions  pi-^iiQgQpi^^grs,  that  the  will  follows  the  preva- 
lent judgment  of  the  intellect.  They  say: 
"  Man  feels  as  his  mind  sees  ;  the  view  of  the  mind  therefore 
must  direct  or  govern  the  feeling  ;  and  the  prevalent  last  judg- 
ment must  decide  the  will."  It  is  from  this  statement  Dr. 
Hodge  infers  that  depravity  and  holiness  must  be  ultimately 
traced  to  the  intellect;  Dr.  Dick  infers  that  the  revolution  of 
the  will,  in  effectual  calling,  is  the  natural  effect  of  true  illumi- 
nation ;  and  Dr.  Alexander  infers  that  a  faith  which  is  simply 


574  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

full  convection  of  the  truth,  is  all  we  need  to  make  the  soul 
embrace  salvation  and  duty.  This  psychological  law  we  fully 
admit ;  it  is  what  defines  man  as  a  reasonable  agent.  That  is, 
granted  that  the  prevalent  judgment  of  the  intellect  be  of  a 
given  nature  on  a  specific  subject,  then  the  feeling  and  choice 
of  the  soul  on  that  subject  will  of  course  correspond.  But  the 
analysis  stops  one  step  too  short.  Whence  the  kind  of  view 
and  judgment  which  the  intellect  is  found  to  have  on  that  given 
subject  ?  Is  it  always  of  a  purely  intellectual  origin  ?  This  is 
tacitly  assumed,  but  erroneously.  Let  the  subject  be  one  of  a 
moral  nature,  involving  an  object  of  choice  or  desire,  and  it  will 
be  found  that  there,  the  heart  has  taught  the  head  ;  the  opinion 
is  the  echo  of  the  disposition ;  the  power  of  spontaneity,  co-or- 
dinate with  that  of  intelligence,  has  announced  its  own  original 
habitus.  Let  us  explain  :  A  child  tastes  experimentally,  candies, 
sweetmeats,  honey,  sugar.  In  each  case  his  palate  is  gratified. 
On  this  similarity  of  power  to  gratify  the  palate,  his  mind  con- 
structs a  generalization,  forms  the  class  of  "sweet  things,"  and 
concludes  the  general  judgment;  "Sweet  things  are  good." 
Now,  this  general  judgment  may  be  as  truly  and  purely  ac- 
counted an  intellectual  process,  as  the  arithmetical  one  that  a 
larger  subtrahend  must  make  a  smaller  remainder.  And  it  may 
be  said  that,  in  every  subsequent  desire  and  purpose  to  seek  the 
"  sweet  things,"  the  child's  will  follows  this  intellectual  judg- 
ment. Very  true.  And  yet  it  is  none  the  less  true,  that  the 
judgment  is  itself  a  generalization  of  a  series  of  acts  of  appe- 
tency; the  mere  echo  of  the  instinctive  verdict  of  an  animal 
appetite.  So  that  in  its  last  analysis,  the  causation  of  the 
choice  is  traced  up,  through  thp  intellect,  to  a  law  of  the  spon- 
taneity. 

We  shall  be  reminded  that  the  instance  we  have  chosen 
gives  us  only  an  animal  appetite,  a  phenome- 
FoliJw  thi  H?art?'°"'  !^o^  of  animal  spontaneity  ;  whereas  the  thing 
in  debate  is  moral  emotion  and  choice,  which 
is  always  rational  emotion  and  choice.  This  we  fully  admit, 
and  we  advance  the  instance  only  for  an  illustration.  Perhaps  it 
is  a  clumsy  one.  But  has  not  the  will  as  real,  and  as  original, 
appetencies,  as  the  palate  ?  When  we  call  the  former  rational, 
moral  desires,  what  do  we  mean?  That  disposition  is  nothing 
but  a  modification  of  thought  ?  We  apprehend  that  our  mean- 
ing is  this :  the  intellect  is  the  faculty  by  which  we  conceive  the 
object  of  the  moral  appetency;  as,  in  the  case  of  the  animal 
appetite,  the  nerves  of  sensation  are  the  medium  by  which  we 
perceive  the  sweet  object.  Yet  in  the  moral  phenomenon,  there 
is  an  original  disposition  of  will,  which  is  as  truly  a  spiritual 
appetency,  as  the  bodily  appetite  is  an  animal  appetency.  If 
we  are  correct  in  this,  we  shall  find  that  the  judgments  general- 
ized in  the  mind,  as  to  the  desirableness  of  moral  good  or  evil, 
however  purely  intellectual,  when  abstracted  from  their  source. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  575 

are  yet  but  the  echoes  of  the  original,  or  regenerated  appeten- 
cies of  the  will.  Let  us  now  apply  this  analysis  to  the  sinner's 
conversion.  Why  does  the  renewed  sinner  embrace  Christ  as  a 
Saviour  from  sin,  by  his  faith  ;  and  new  obedience  instead  of 
sin,  by  his  repentance  ?  Because  his  understanding  illuminated 
by  grace,  now  judges  clearly  that  salvation  and  new  obedience 
are  not  only  the  obligatory,  but  the  preferable  good.  Such  is 
our  brethrens'  answer  ;  and  we  fully  assent.  Were  it  not  so,  the 
new  choice  would  not  be  rational,  and  so,  not  spiritual.  But 
now,  one  question  more  ;  How  came  this  illuminated  intellect  to 
judge  the  salvation  from  sin,  and  the  new  obedience,  the  prefer- 
able good  ;  when  the  original,  native  disposition  of  the  will  was 
to  prefer  the  sin,  and  dislike  the  obedience  ?  It  was  only  because 
the  Holy  Ghost  sovereignly  revolutionized  the  disposition  of 
will.  This  was  the  primary  cause ;  illumination  the  immediate 
consequence ;  and  faith  and  repentance  the  practical  result. 
Thus  the  profound  Paschal,  {Pcnsees,  ire  Partie.  §  3);  '"God 
alone  can  put  divine  truths  into  the  soul;  and  by  the  mode 
which  pleases  Him.  I  know  He  hath  willed  them  to  enter  from 
the  heart  into  the  mind,  and  not  from  the  mind  into  the  heart, 
in  order  to  humble  the  proud  power  of  reasoning,  which  pre- 
sumes to  be  judge  of  the  things  the  will  chooses,  and  in  order 
to  heal  this  infirm  will,  which  has  wholly  corrupted  itself  by  its 
unworthy  attachments.  And  hence  it  results,  that  while  in 
speaking  of  human  affairs,  men  say  :  One  must  know  in  order, 
to  love,  which  hath  passed  into  a  proverb  ;  the  saints  on  the 
contrary  say,  in  speaking  of  divine  things  :  "  One  must  love  in 
order  to  know." 

But  the  decisive  appeal  should  be,  not  to  philosophy,  but 
to  the  Scriptures.     These  would  seem  to  sus- 

ScHpfure!"^"^  ^'°'''  ^^^"  o"^  vi^^^  ^^  ^  multitude  of  places;  where 
sin  and  depravity  are  traced  to  an  "evil  heart," 
a  "hardened  heart;"  and  holiness  to  a  "pure  heart;"  or  where 
regeneration  is  a  cleansing  of  the  heart,  a  giving  of  a  fleshly 
heart. 

But  there  are  Scriptures  which  not  only  do  this,  but  do  also 
assign  an  order;  and  with  reference  to  moral  objects,  the  order 
of  relation  is  from  the  heart  to  the  head.  Here  we  claim  all 
the  texts  already  cited  touching  the  relation  of  repentance  to 
faith.  We  claim  also,  Mark  iii  :  5,  where  Jesus  disapproved  the 
Pharisees'  theory  of  Sabbath  observance  ;  and  this  because  He 
was  "grieved  at  the  hardness  of  their  heart."  So,  in  Eph.  iv  : 
18,  Gentiles  "have  the  understanding  {d:duo:a)  darkened,  being 
alienated  from  the  life  of  God  through  the  ignorance  that  is  in 
them,  because  of  the  blindness  (or  hardness,  izcoocoa:^),  of  their 
heart."  Here  the  Apostle  distinctly  traces  sinful  ignorance  to 
the  heart  for  its  source.  Nor  can  this  be  evaded  by  saying  that 
heart  here  means  "  soul,"  "  mind."  For  this  would  be  flagrantly 
violent  exegesis  :  When  the  Apostle  has  designedly  introduced 


5/6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

a  distinct  reference  to  the  state  of  the  cognitive  faculty,  by  his- 
own,  most  discriminative  word,  ocduoca:  and  then,  evidently,  de- 
signs to  refer  to  the  conative  faculties  of  the  soul,  by  the  recog- 
nized word  for  them,  xayoca  ;  will  any  one  say  he  shall  not  teach 
what  he  aims  to  teach?  Had  he  still  meant  "  understanding," 
we  presume  He  would  have  still  said  "  oravo^a,"  in  the  last  mem- 
ber of  the  verse.  Permit  such  interpretation,  and  next,  we  shall 
meet  this  fate,  viz :  That  when  we  are  trying  our  best  to  say, 
that  in  spiritual  things,  "the  heart  leads  the  head  ;"  we  shall  be 
told:  "No,  you  do  not  mean  that;  you  use  the  word  'heart' 
in  the  comprehensive  sense  of  '  soul ;"  you  mean  that  the  head 
leads  the  head  !" 

We  are    also   referred  to    many  passages,  where,   as  our 

brethren    understand   them,   regeneration    is 

Other  Scriptures  Re-    cJegcj-ibed   as   illumination,  and  depravity  as 

concilecl.  jr  y 

blindness.  "To  turn  them  from  darkness  to 
light."  "  God,"  says  Paul,  "  was  pleased  to  reveal  His  Son  in 
me."  "  The  eyes  of  the  understanding  being  enlightened." 
"  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth."  •"  Renewed  in  knowledge 
after  the  image,"  etc.  "  God  hath  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give 
the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God,  in  the  face  of 
Jesus  Christ."  We  reply  that  regeneration  doubtless  includes 
illumination,  as  an  essential  and  glorious  part  thereof.  But  it  is 
a  different  thing  to  say  that  regeneration  is  only  illumination. 
Should  we  force  the  Scriptures  to  assert  the  latter,  we 
should  only  make  the  Bible  contradict  itself,  when  it  describes 
a  quickening  or  revolutionizing  work  of  divine  grace,  which  is 
in  order  to  illumination,  and  therefore  prior  in  causation. 

We  are   thus  led   back  to   that  application  of  our  theory, 

which  is  at  once  its  best  illustration  and  most 
This  Psychology  ap-    j^nportant  use  ;  its  bearing  upon  the  doctrine 
phed  to  the  Question.  i  tti!-i  •  >=>      ^ 

that  the  Holy  Ghost  in  regeneration  operates, 

not  only  mediately  through  the  Word,  but  also  immediately 
and  supernaturally. 

(a.)  Because  the  Scriptures  often  speak  of  a  spiritual  power 
precedaneous  to  the  truth,  on  the  operation  of  which  power,  the 
saving  apprehension  of  truth  is  conditioned.  See  Ps.  cxix  :  i8. 
The  opening  is  the  precedent  cause  ;  the  beholding  of  wonderful 
things  out  of  the  law,  the  consequence.  As  the  eye  closed  by  cat- 
aract cannot  be  restored  to  vision  by  any  pouring  of  beams  of 
light  on  it,  however  pure  and  condensed,  so  the  soul  does  not 
acquire  spiritual  vision  by  bringing  the  truth  alone  in  any 
degree  of  spiritual  contact.  The  surgeon's  knife  goes  before, 
removing  the  obstruction ;  then,  on  the  presentation  of  light, 
vision  results.  Both  must  concur.  Let  the  student  examine, 
in  the  same  way,  Luke  xxiv  :  45  ;  Eph.  i  :  17,  18  ;  Acts  xvi  : 
14  ;   I  Cor.  iii  :  6,  7,  9;  Jer.  xxxi  :  33. 

(b.)  We  argue,  secondly,  against  this  conception  of  deprav- 
ity and  regeneration,  and  in  favor  of  the  immediate  agency  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  577 

the  Holy  Ghost,  that  were  the  former  scheme  true  (even  as  set 
forth  by  Dr.  Dick),  faith  would  be  in  order  to  the  regeneration 
of  tlie  will.  However  he  might  eliminate  any  sequence  of 
time,  if  "  this  gracious  knowledge  necessarily  leads  the  will  from 
the  world  to  God,"  it  remains  clear,  that  faith  as  cause  must 
precede  this  first  renewal  of  the  will.  But  the  Scriptures  make 
faith  the  fruit  of  renewal.     The  other  view  is  Arminian. 

(c.)  The  analytical  exposure  of  the  absurdity  of  the  Pela- 
gian scheme,  regeneration  by  moral  suasion,  results  ultimately 
in  this,  namely ;  that  the  state  of  disposition  determines  a  priori 
whether  any  given  object  presented  to  the  soul  shall  be  of  the 
nature  of  objective  inducement  or  not.  Moral  suasion  is  that 
influence  over  the  will,  which  objects  of  natural  or  moral  excel- 
lence, presented  from  without,  are  supposed  to  have  as  induce- 
ments to  right  feeling  and  choice.  Now,  any  object  whatsoever 
is  not  inducement  to  any  being  whatsoever.  One  cannot  at- 
tract a  hungry  horse  with  bacon ;  nor  a  hungry  man  with  hay. 
Whether  the  object  shall  be  inducement,  depends  upon  its  rela- 
tion to  the  existing  appetency  of  the  being  to  be  influenced. 
And  that  state  of  appetency  is  obviously  related,  as  cause,  to 
the  influence  of  the  inducement  as  occasion.  Hence,  if  the  sin- 
ner's will  is  naturally  indisposed  and  disabled  to  all  spiritual 
good,  that  good  cannot  exert  moral  suasion  over  that  will ;  for 
the  simple  reason  that  the  effect  cannot  reverse  its  own  cause. 
Such  is  the  argument ;  and  it  is  exhaustive.  But  now,  who 
does  not  see  that  this  analysis  proceeds  upon  our  theory  ;  that 
the  will  has  its  own  disposition,  original,  characteristic  ?  If  the 
kabitus  of  the  will  is  nothing  else  than  a  modification  of  the 
intelligence ;  and  the  sinner's  intellect  is  adequate  to  the  more 
intellectual  apprehension  of  moral  truth  (as  it  is),  we  see  no 
reason  why  moral  suasion  might  not  be  expected  to  "  lead  the 
will  necessarily  from  the  world  to  God." 

(d.)  Dr.  Hodge  expounds,  with  peculiar  force  and  fullness, 
the  solemn  fact,  that  there  is  a  "  common  grace  "  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  (which  is  not  "  common  sufficient  grace  ")  convincing 
men  of  sin  and  misery  up  to  a  certain  grade  ;  but  not  renewing 
them.  Now,  this  partial,  spiritual  light  in  unrenewed  minds 
must  be  correct  light  as  far  as  it  goes  ;  for  it  is  the  Spirit's.  Yet 
it  does  not  even  partially  subdue  the  enmity  of  those  minds  to 
God  and  duty.  The  usual  effect  is  to  inflame  it.  See  Rom. 
vii  :  8,  9.  It  appears,  then,  that  light,  without  immediate  grace 
revolutionizing  the  will,  does  not  effect  the  work.  Nor  is  the 
evasion  just,  that  this  conviction  of  duty  inflames  the  carnal  en- 
mity, only  because  depravity  has  made  it  a  distorted  and  erro- 
neous view  of  duty.  We  assert  that  convicted,  but  unrenewed 
souls  fight  against  God  and  duty,  not  because  He  is  miscon- 
ceived, but  because  He  begins  to  be  rightly  conceived.  There 
is,  of  course,  distortion  of  mental  view  concerning  him  as  long 
as  sin  reigns  ;  but  He  is  now  feared  and  hated,  not  only  because 
37* 


578  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  that  error  of  view  ;  rather  is  He  the  more  feared  and  hated, 
because  the  sinful  soul  now  begins  to  see  Him  with  less  error,  as 
a  sovereign,  holy,  just,  pure  Being. 

(e)  We  infer  the  same  view  of  sin  and  new  birth,  from  the 
regeneration  of  infants.  They  cannot  be  renewed  by  illumina- 
tion, because  their  intellects  are  undeveloped.  Yet  they  are  re- 
newed. Now,  we  grant  that  there  is  a  wide  difference  in  the 
circumstances  and  means  of  their  redemption,  and  that  of  adults. 
Yet  are  they  delivered  from  a  state  of  original  sin  generically  the 
same  with  ours ;  and  delivered  by  the  same  Redeemer  and 
Sanctifier,  Must  not  the  method  of  the  renewing  power  be  the 
same  intrinsically?     Luke  xviii  :  17. 

(f.)  This  view  gives  us  a  consistent  rationale  of  that  impo- 
Doctrine  True  be-    tency  of  the  natural  man  to  receive  the  things 
cause  it  Explains  car-    of  the  Spirit   of  God,  which   are  foolishness 
nal  blindness.  ^j^^.^  \{y^^  described  in  I  Cor.  ii :  14,  and  else- 

where. This  impotency  too  plainly  exists.  Dr.  Dick  cannot 
define  wherein  it  consists.  See  his  66th  Lecture.  Does  it  con- 
sist in  the  absence  of  any  substantive  revelation,  which  the  be- 
liever gains  ?  No ;  this  would  be  perilous  fanaticism.  Does 
it  consist  in  the  hiding  of  any  esoteric  sen -e  of  the  Word  to 
which  the  believer  has  the  key  ?  No  ;  this  would  be  Origenism. 
Does  it  consist  in  the  loss  of  a  cognitive  faculty  by  the  fall  ? 
No  ;  that  would  suspend  his  responsibihty.  Whence  this  im- 
potency?    They  have  no  answer. 

But  we  have  one.  The  will  has  its  own  habitus,  regulative 
of  all  its  fundamental  acts,  which  is  not  a  mere  modification  of 
the  intelligence,  but  its  own  co-ordinate,  original  character ;  a 
simple,  ultimate  fact  of  the  moral  constitution.  Hence  an  inter- 
action of  will  and  intellect.  On  moral  and  spiritual  subjects  the 
practical  generalisations  of  the  intellect  are  founded  on  the  dic- 
tates of  the  disposition  of  the  will.  But  now,  these  practical 
judgments  of  the  sinner's  understanding,  prompted  by  the  car- 
nal disposition,  contradict  certain  propositions  which  are  pre- 
mises to  the  most  important  gospel  conclusions  and  precepts. 
No  wonder,  then,  that  such  a  mind  cannot  apprehend  them  as 
reasonable !  For  example  :  The  sinner's  real  opinion,  taught 
by  a  carnal  heart,  is,  that  sin  in  itself,  apart  from  its  penalty 
which  self-love  apprehends  as  an  evil,  would  be  the  preferred 
good.  A  gospel  is  now  explained  to  him,  proposing  deliverance 
from  this  sin,  through  the  instrumentality  of  faith.  But  the 
plan  postulates  the  belief  that  the  sin  is  per  se  so  great  an  evil, 
that  deliverance  from  it  is  a  good  greatly  to  be  desired !  No 
wonder,  then,  that,  as  this  postulate  breaks  upon  the  understand- 
ing of  the  sinner,  he  is  obfuscated,  stumbled,  dumb-founded ! 
He  is  required  to  act  on  a  belief  which  his  carnal  heart  will  not 
let  him  believe.  His  action,  to  be  reasonable,  must  assume  sin 
to  be  hatetful.  But  he  loves  it !  He  feels  that  he  naturally 
loves  it,  and  only  hates  its  consequences.      "  He  cannot  know 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  579 

the  truth,  for  it  is  spiritually  discerned."  Were  a  sprightly  child 
allured  to  approach  the  reader  by  the  promise  of  "  something 
good,"  and  told  that  he  should  have  it  upon  holding  out  his 
hand  for  it;  and  were  he  to  perceive,  just  then,  that  the  thing 
you  held  out  was  a  nauseous  medicine,  of  whose  utility  to  him- 
self he  was  ignorant,  he  would  be  struck  with  a  similar  "  ina- 
bility." There  would  be  a  sense  in  which  he  would  become  un- 
able to  hold  out  his  hand  even :  he  would  not  know  how  to  do 
it.  He  would  stand  confused.  Now,  this  child  is  not  becoming 
idiotic,  but  his  native  appetencies  repel  that  which  you  propose 
as  an  attraction  ;  and,  hence,  his  obstinate  apprehension  of  the 
unreasonableness  of  your  proposal. 

Thus,  as  it  appears  to  us,  the  simple  psychology,  which  is 
assumed  in  the  Bible,  is  found  to  be  the  truest  philosophy,  and 
throws  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  doctrines  held  in  common  by 
us  and  by  all  Calvinists. 


LECTURE  XL VIII. 

ARMINIAN  THEORY  OF  REDEMPTION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Give  a  connected  view  of  the  Anninian  Five  Points. 

Art.  of  Synod  of  Dort.     Whitby's  Five  Points.     Hill's   Divinity,  bk.  iv,  ch.  8. 
Stapfer's  Pol.  TheoL,  Vol.  iv,  ch.  17,  ^  12-35. 

2.  Disprove  the  doctrine  of  Common  Sufficient  Grace. 

Turrcttin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  3.     Hill,  bk.  iv,  ch.  9,    ^  i.      Ridgley,  Qu.  44.     Wat- 
son's Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  24,  25. 

3.  Is  the  grace  of  God  in  regeneration  invincible?     And   is  the  will  of  man  in 
■regeneration,  active  or  passive  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  5,  6.     Hill,  bl?.  iv,  ch.  9.     Knapp,  §  130,  132. 

4.  Can  any  Pagans  be  saved,  without  the  instrumentality  of  the  Scriptures  ? 
Turrettin,   Loc.  i,  Qu.  4,  and  Loc.  x,  Qu.  5.     Ridgley,  Qu.  60.     Annual  Ser- 
mon for  Presb.  Board  For.  Miss.,  June,  1858. 

I    HE  subjects  which  are  now  brought  under  discussion  intro- 
duce  us    to   the    very    centre    of    the    points    which  are 
debated  between  us  and  Arminians.     I  pro- 
minian  Theolo^'!     ^'    pose,  therefore,   for  their  farther  illustration, 
and  l^ecause  no  better  occasion  offers,  to  con- 
sider here  their  scheme. 

The  sources  of  Arminian  Theology  would  be  best  found 
in  the  apology  of  Episcopius,  Limborch's  Christian  Theology, 
and  Knapp's  Christian  Theology.  Among  the  English  may 
be  consulted,  as  a  low  Arminian,  Daniel  Whitby's  Five  Points  ; 
as  high  Arminians,  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts,  and  Watson's 
Theological  Institutes.  For  refutation  of  Arminianism,  see 
Stapfer,  Vol.  4  ;  Turrettin ;  Hill,  bk.  4,  ch.  9. 

I.  A  connected  view  of  the  Arminian  tenets: 


580  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

The  five  points  handed  in  by  the  Arminians  to  the  States 
Five  Points  of  Re-    General  of  Holland,  in  their  celebrated  Re- 
monstrants    Amblgu-    monstrance,    were    so    covertly    worded     as 
°^^-  scarcely  to    disclo^sc    their   true    sentiments. 

The  assertions  concerning  original  Sin  and  Free  will,  were 
seemingly  such  as  Calvinists  could  accept.  The  doctrine  of 
common  grace  was  but  obscurely  hinted  ;  and  the  perseverance 
of  Saints  was  only  doubted.  But  their  system  soon  developed 
itself  into  semi-Pelagianism,  well  polished  and  knit  together. 
Discarding  the  order  of  the  five  points,  I  will  exhibit  the  theory 
in  its  logical  connection. 

I.  Its  starting  point  is  the  doctrine  of  indifference  of  the 

T     ■    ,    c  •      will,  and  a  denial  of  total  depravity,  as  held 

Logical    Source     in  '  .  -^       ,     -'^ '      .  , 

Doctrine  of  Indiffer-  by  Calvmists.  Accordmg  to  the  universal 
ency  of  the  Will,  consent  of  Pelagians  and  Socinians,  this 
View  of  Original  Sm.  gelf-determination  of  the  will  is  held  neces- 
sary to  proper  free  agency  and  responsibility.  Take  Whitby 
as  a  type  of  the  grosser  Arminians.  He  thinks  Adam  was 
created  liable,  but  not  subject,  to  bodily  death,  and  his  immu- 
nity in  Paradise  was  secured  by  his  access  to  the  Tree  of  Life. 
His  sin  made  death  and  its  attendant  pains  inevitable ;  and  this 
his  posterity  inherit,  according  to  the  natural  law,  that  like 
begets  like.  This  has  produced  a  set  of  circumstances,  making 
all  men  so  liable  to  sin,  that,  practically,  none  escape.  But 
this  results  from  no  moral  necessity  or  certainty  of  the  will. 
Man  has  natural  desires  for  natural  good,  but  this  conciipisccntia 
is  not  sin  till  formed  into  a  positive  volition.  But  the  sense  of 
guilt  and  fear  drives  man  from  God,  the  pressure  of  earthly  ills 
tends  to  earthly  mindedness ;  man's  pains  make  him  querulous, 
envious,  inordinate  in  desire ;  and  above  all,  a  general  evil 
example  misleads.  So  that  all  are,  in  fact,  precipitated  into 
sin,  in  virtue  of  untoward  circumstances  inherited  from  Adam. 
This  is  the  only  sense  in  which  Adam  is  our  federal  head. 
This  relation  is  not  only  illustrated  by,  but  similar  to,  that 
which  exists  between  a  bad  parent  and  an  unfortunate  offspring 
now — in  instance  of  the  same  natural  law. 

But  Wesley  and  Watson  repudiate  this,  as  too  low  ;  and 
teach  a  fall  in  Adam,  prior  to  its  reparation 
OH^^narsin  ^^^^  °^  ^^  common  grace,  going  as  far  as  moderate 
Calvinists.  Watson,  for  instance,  (Vol.  ii,  p. 
53,  &c.,)  says  that  imputation  is  considered  by  theologians  as 
mediate  and  immediate.  Mediate  imputation  he  says,  is  "  our 
mortality  of  body  and  corruption  of  moral  nature  in  virtue  of 
our  derivation. from  Adam."  Immediate  means  "that  Adam's 
sin  is  accounted  ours  in  the  sight  of  God,  by  virtue  of  our  fed 
eral  relation."  This,  the  student  will  perceive,  is  a  very  differ- 
ent distinction  from  that  drawn  by  the  Reformed  divines. 
Watson  then  repudiates  the  first  statement  as  defective;  and 
the  latter  as  extreme.     Here  he  evidently  misunderstands  us : 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  58 1 

for  he  proceeds  to  say,  with  Dr.  Watts,  that  Adam  did  act  as  a 
pubHc  person ;  our  federal  head,  and  that  the  penal  consequen- 
ces of  our  sin  (not  the  sin  itself),  are  accounted  to  us,  consist- 
ing of  bodily  ills  and  death,  privation  of  God's  indwelling, 
(which  results  in  positive  depravity)  and  eternal  death.  In  this 
sense,  says  he,"we  may  safely  contend  for  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin," 

But  in  defending  against  Pelagians,  &c.,  the  justice  of  this 
arrangement  of  God,  he  says  it  must  be  viewed  in  connection 
with  that  purpose  of  redemption  towards  the  human  race, 
which  co-existed  in  the  divine  mind,  by  which  God  purposed 
to  purchase  and  bestow  common  grace  on  every  fallen  man, 
thus  repairing  his  loss  in  Adam.  (The  fatal  objection  to  such 
a  justification  is,  that  then  God  would  have  been  under  obliga- 
tions to  provide  man  a  Saviour :  and  Christ's  mission  would  not 
have  been  of  pure  grace). 

2.  This  leads  us  to  their  next  point :  God  having  intended 
all  along  to  repair  the  fall,  and  having  imme- 
Gracr'^°"  ^  ^^^^  diately  thereafter  given  a  promise  to  our  first 
parents,  has  ever  since  communicated  to  all 
mankind  a  common  precedaneous  sufficient  grace,  purchased 
for  all  by  Christ's  work.  This  is  not  sufficient  to  effect  a  com- 
plete redemption,  but  to  enable,  both  naturally  and  morally,  to 
fulfil  the  conditions  for  securing  redeeming  grace.  This  com- 
mon grace  consists  in  the  indifferency  of  man's  will  remaining, 
notwithstanding  his  fall,  the  lights  of  natural  conscience,  good 
impulses  enabling  unregenerate  men  to  do  works  of  social  vir- 
tue, the  outward  call  of  mercy  made,  as  some  Arminians  sup- 
pose, even  to  heathens  through  reason,  and  some  lower  forms 
of  universal  spiritual  influence.  The  essential  idea  and  argu- 
ment of  the  Arminian  is,  that  God  could  not  punish  man  justly 
for  unbelief,  unless  He  conferred  on  him  both  natural  and  moral 
ability  to  believe  or  not.  They  quote  such  Scripture  as  Ps. 
Ixxxi  :  13 ;  Is.  v  :  4 ;  Luke  xix  :  42  ;  Rev.  iii  :  20 ;  Rom.  ii  :  14 ; 
John  1:9.  So  here  we  have,  by  a  different  track,  the  old  con- 
clusion of  the  semi-Pelagian.  Man,  then,  decides  the  whole 
remaining  difference,  as  to  believing  or  not  believing,  by  his 
use  of  this  precedent  grace,  according  to  his  own  free  will. 
God's  purpose  to  produce  different  results  in  different  men  is 
wholly  conditioned  on  the  use  which.  He  foresees,  they  will 
make  of  their  common  grace.  To  those  who  improve  it,  God 
stands  pledged  to  give  the  crowning  graces  of  regeneration, 
justification,  sanctification,  and  glorification.  To  the  heathen, 
even,  who  use  their  light  aright,  (unfavourable  circumstances 
may  make  such  instances  rare),  Christ  will  give  gospel  light 
and  redeeming  grace,  in  some  inscrutable  way. 

3.  Hence,  the  operations  of  grace  are  at  every  stage  vin- 
^       .     r>  cible  by  man's  will ;  to  be  otherwise,    they 

Grace  m   Kegenera-  y  '  .  .  '  ■' 

tion  Vincible.  must  Violate  the  conditions  of  moral  agency. 


582  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

1 

Even  after  regeneration,  grace  may  be  so  resisted  by  free  will,, 
as  to  be  dethroned  from  the  soul,  which  then  again  becomes 
unrenewed. 

4.  The  redeeming  work  of  Christ  was  equally  for  all  and 

ev^ery  man  of  the  human  race,  to  make  his 
era^.^"^^""^''""   ^'"'    sins  pardonable  on  the  condition  of  faith. to 

purchase  a  common  sufficient  grace  actually 
enjoyed  by  all,  and  the  efficient  graces  of  a  complete  redemp- 
tion suspended  on  the  proper  improvement  of  common  grace 
by  free  will.  Christ's  intention  and  provision  are,  therefore,  the 
same  to  all.  But  as  justice  requires  that  the  pardoned  rebel 
shall  believe  and  repent,  to  those  who,  of  their  own  choice, 
refuse  this,  the  provision  remains  forever  ineffective. 

5.  In  the   doctrine  of  justification,  again,   the  lower  and 

higher  Arminians  difier  somewhat.     Both  de- 
Justification.  ^^^  justification  as  consisting  simply  of  par- 

don. According  to  the  lower,  this  justification  is  only  purchased 
by  Christ  in  this,  that  He  procured  from  God  the  admission  of 
a  lower  Covenant,  admitting  faith  and  the  Evangelical  obedi- 
ence flowing  out  of  it,  as  a  righteousness,  in  place  of  the  perfect 
obedience  of  the  Covenant  of  works.  According  to  the 
higher,  our  faith  (without  the  works  its  fruits)  is  imputed  to  us 
for  righteousness,  according,  as  they  suppose,  to  Rom.  iv  :  5. 
Both  deny  the  proper  imputation  of  Christ's  active  (as  dis- 
tinguished from  His  passive)  obedience,  and  deny  any  imputa- 
tion, except  of  the  believer's  own  faith  ;  although  the  higher 
Arminians,  in  making  this  denial,  seem  to  misunderstand 
imputation  as  a  transference  of  moral  character. 

Hence,  it  will  be  easily  seen,  that  their  conception  of  elec- 
tion must  be  the  following :   The  only  abso- 
6.  Personal  Election    ^         ^^^   unconditional   decree   which    God 

Conditional.  ,       r  •  •  > 

has   made   from    eternity,  concerning    man  s 

salvation,  is  His  resolve  that  unbelievers  shall  perish.  This  is 
not  a  predestinating  of  individuals,  but  the  fixing  of  a  General 
Principle.  God  does,  indeed,  (as  they  explain  Rom.  ix-xi 
chapters),  providentially  and  sovereignly  elect  races  to  the 
enjoyment  of  certain  privileges ;  but  this  is  not  an  election  to 
salvation ;  for  free-will  may  in  any  or  each  man  of  the  race, 
abuse  the  privileges,  and  be  lost.  So  far  as  God  has  an  exter- 
nal purpose  toward  individuals,  it  is  founded  on  His  foresight, 
which  He  had  from  eternity,  of  the  use  they  would  make  of 
their  common  grace.  Some,  He  foresaw,  would  believe  and 
repent,  and  therefore  elected  them  to  justification.  Others,  He 
foresaw,  would  not  only  believe  and  repent,  but  also  persevere 
to  the  end ;  and  these  He  elected  to  salvation. 

A  thoroughly-knit  system,  if  its  premises  are  granted. 

n.  The  refutation  of  the  Arminian  theory  must  be 
deferred,  on  some  points,  till  we  pass  to  other  heads  of  divinity, 
as  Justification  and  Final  Perseverance.     On  the  extent  of  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  583 

atonement  enough  has  already  been  said.     On  the  remaining 
points  we  shall  now  attempt  to  treat. 

In  opposition  to  the  assertion  of  a  comm6n  sufificient 
grace,  we  remark,  1st.  That  there  is  no  suf- 
GraceTd-utel"^"'"'  ficient  evidence  of  it  in  Scripture.  The  pas- 
sages quoted  above  do,  indeed,  prove  that 
God  has  done  for  all  men  under  the  gospel  all  that  is  needed  to 
effect  their  salvation,  if  their  own  wills  are  not  depraved.  But 
they  only  express  the  fact  that  God's  general  benevolence 
would  save  all  to  whom  the  gospel  comes,  if  they  would 
repent ;  and  that  the  obstacles  to  that  salvation  are  now  only 
in  the  sinners.  But  whether  it  is  God's  secret  purpose  to  over- 
come that  internal  obstacle,  in  their  own  perverse  wills,  these 
texts  do  not  say,  It  will  be  found,  on  examination,  that  they 
all  refer  merely  to  the  external  call,  which  we  have  proved, 
comes  short  of  the  effectual  call :  or  that  they  are  addressed  to 
persons  who,  though  shortcoming,  or  even  backsliding,  are 
regarded  as  God's  children  already.     Look  and  see. 

The  doctrine  is  false  in  fact ;  for  how  can  grace  be  suffi- 
cient, where  the  essential  outward  call,  even, 
in  Fact.  "*^  ""^  ^  ^^'  is  lacking  ?  Rom.  x  :  14.  God  declares,  in 
Scripture,  He  has  given  up  many  to  evil. 
Acts  xiv  :  16;  Rom.  i  :  21,  28  ;  ix  :  18.  Again:  the  doctrine 
is  contradicted  by  the  whole  doctrine  of  God,  concerning  the 
final  desertion  of  those  who  have  grieved  away  the  Holy 
Ghost.  See  Hos.  iv  :  17;  Gen.  vi  :  3  ;  Heb.  vi  :  1-6.  Here  is 
a  class  so  deserted  of  grace,  that  their  damnation  becomes  a 
certainty.  Are  they,  therefore,  no  longer  free,  responsible  and 
blameable  ? 

3.  If  we  take  the  Arminian  description  of  common  suffi- 
cient grace,  then  many  who  have  its  elements  most  largel}',  an 
enlightened  conscience,  frequent  compunctions,  competent 
religious  knowledge,  amiability,  and  natural  virtues,  good 
impulses  and  resolutions,  are  lost ;  and  some,  who  seem  before 
to  have  very,  little  of  these,  are  saved.  How  is  this  ?  Again : 
the  doctrine  does  not  commend  itself  to  experience ;  for  this 
tells  us  that,  among  men,  good  intentions  are  more  rare  than 
good  opportunities.  We  see  that  some  men  have  vastly  more 
opportunity  vouchsafed  them  by  God's  providence  than  others. 
It  would  be  strange  if,  contrary  to  the  fact  just  stated,  all  those 
who  have  less  opportunity  should  have  better  intentions  than 
opportunities. 

We  have  sometimes  illustrated  the  Wesleyan  doctrine  of 

common  sufficient  grace  thus  :  "All  men  lie 
4.  Common    Gi'ace,     •       ^u       <    t  i        r  j  j  >    • 

if  Sufficient  Saves.         ^^  ^^^     slough  ot  despond     m  consequence 

of  the  fall.  There  is  a  platform,  say  Armin- 
ians,  elevated  an  inch  or  two  above  the  surface  of  this  slough, 
but  yet  firm,  to  which  men  must  struggle  in  the  exercise  of 
their  common  sufficient  grace  alone,  the  platform  of  repentance 


584  SYLLABUS    AND    MOTES 

and  faith.  Now,  it  is  true,  that  from  this  platform  man  could 
no  more  climb  to  heaven  without  divine  grace,  than  his  feet 
could  scale  the  moon.  But  God's  grace  is  pledged  to  lift  up  to 
heaven  all  those  who  will  so  employ  their  free-agency,  as  to 
climb  to  that  platform,  and  stay  there."  Now,  we  say,  with  the 
Arminian,  that  a  common  sufficient  grace,  which  does  not  work 
faith  and  repentance,  is  in  no  sense  sufficient ;  for  until  these 
graces  are  exercised,  nothing  is  done.  Heb.  xi :  6  ;  Jno.  iii  :  ;^6. 
But  he  who  has  these  graces,  we  farther  assert,  has  made  the 
whole  passage  from  death  to  life.  That  platform  is  the  plat- 
form of  eternal  life.  The  whole  difference  between  elect  and 
non-elect  is  already  constituted.     See  John  iii  :  36  ;    i  John  v  : 

I  ;  Acts  xiii  :  48  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  17,  with  Eph.  iii  :  17.  If  then  there 
is  sufficient  grace,  it  is  none  other  than  the  grace  which  effectu- 
ates redemption ;  and  the  Arminian  should  say,  if  consistent 
with  his  false  premises,  not  that  God  by  it  puts  it  in  every  man's 
free  will  to  fulfill  the  conditions  on  which  further  saving  com- 
munications depend ;  but  that  He  puts  it  in  every  man's  free 
will  to  save  himself. 

If  the  doctrine  is  true,  it  is  every  man's  own  uninfluenced 
5.  Or  else,  it  is  either    choice,  and  not  the   purpose  of  God,  which 
not  Common,  or  not    determines   his  eternal   destiny.     Either  the 
Sufhcient.  Common  grace  effects  its  saving  work  in  those 

who  truly  believe,  in  virtue  of  some  essential  addition  made  to 
its  influences  by  God,  or  it  does  not.  If  the  former,  then  it  was 
not  "common,"  nor  "sufficient,"  in  those  who  failed  to  receive 
that  addition.  If  the  latter,  then  the  whole  difference  in  its  suc- 
cess must  have  been  made  by  the  man's  own  free  will  resisting 
less — i.  e.,  the  essential  opposition  to  grace  in  some  souls,  dif- 
fers from  that  in  others.     But  see  Rom.  iii  :  12,  27  ;  Eccl.  viii  : 

I I  ;  Eph.  ii  :  8,  9 ;  1  Cor.  iv  :  7  ;  Rom.  ix  :  16  ;  and  the  whole 
tenour  of  that  multitude  of  texts,  in  which  believers  ascribe 
their  redemption,  not  to  their  own  superior  docility  or  peni- 
tence, but  to  distinguishing  grace. 

To  attain  the  proper  point  of  view  for  the  rational  refuta- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  "  common  "  sufficient  grace,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  ask  this  question :  What  is  the  nature  of  the 
obstacle  grace  is  needed  to  remove?  Scripture  answers  in 
substance,  that  it  is  inability  of  will,  which  has  its  rudiments 
in  an  ungodly  Jiabitus  of  soul.  That  is  to  say :  the  thing 
grace  has  to  remove  is  the  soul's  own  evil  disposition. 
Now,  the  idea  that  any  cause,  natural  or  supernatural,  half 
rectifies  this,  so  as  to  bring  this  disposition  to  an  ^equipoise, 
is  absurd.  It  is  the  nature  of  disposition  to  be  disposed  : 
this  is  almost  a  truism.  It  is  impossible  to  think  a  moral 
agent  devoid  of  any  and  all  disposition.  If  God  did  pro- 
duce in  a  sinful  soul,  for  one  instant,  the  state  which  com- 
mon sufficient  grace  is  supposed  to  realize,  it  would  be  an 
absurd  tertium    quid,  in  a    state    of  moral    neutrality.     As  we 


*■  OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  585 

argued  against  the  Pelagian,  that  state,  if  possible,  would  be 
immoral,  in  that  it  implied  an  indifferent  equipoise  as  to  pos- 
itive obligations.  And  the  initial  volitions  arising  out  of  that 
state  would  not  be  morally  right,  because  they  would  not  spring 
out  of  positive  right  motives  ;  and  such  acts,  being  v/orthless, 
could  not  foster  any  holy  principles  or  habits.  The  dream  of 
common  grace  is  suggested  obviously,  by  the  Pelagian  confu- 
sion of  inability  of  will  with  compulsion.  The  inventor  has  his 
mind  full  of  some  evil  necessity  which  places  an  external 
obstruction  between  the  sinner  and  salvation  ;  hence  this  dream 
of  an  aid,  sufficient  but  not  efficacious,  which  lifts  away  the 
obstruction,  and  yet  leaves  the  sinner  undetermined,  though 
free,  to  embrace  Christ.  Remember  that  the  obstruction  is  in 
the  will ;  and  the  dream  perishes.  The  aid  which  removes  it 
can  be  nothing  short  of  that,  which  determines  the  will  to 
Christ.  The  peculiar  inconsistency  of  the  Wesleyan  is  seen  in 
this :  that,  when  the  Pelagian  advances  this  idea  of  Adam's 
creation  in  a  state  of  moral  neutrality,  the  Wesleyan  (see  Wes- 
ley's Orig.  sin.  or  Watson,  ch.  i8th),  refutes  it  by  the  same  irre- 
fragible  logic  with  the  Calvinists.  He  proves  the  very  state  of 
soul  to  be  preposterous  and  impossible.  Yet,  when  he  comes 
to  effectual  calling,  he  imagines  a  common  grace,  which  results, 
at  least  for  a  time,  in  the  same  impossible  state  of  the  soul !  It 
is  a  reversion  to  Pelagius. 

The  views    of   regeneration  which   Calvinists    present,   in 

calling  the  grace  of  God  therein  invincible, 
rattif invincibfe!^'''"    ^^^  .i"  denying  the   synergism  {ao^.eor^co)  of 

man  s  will  therein,  necessarily  flow  from  their 
view  of  original  sin.  We  do  not  deny  that  the  common  call  is 
successfully  resisted  by  all  non-elect  gospel  sinners ;  it  is  be- 
cause God  never  communicates  renewing  grace,  as  He  never 
intended  in  His  secret  purpose.  Nor  do  we  deny  that  the  elect, 
while  under  preliminary  conviction,  struggle  against  grace,  with 
as  much  obstinacy  as  they  dare  ;  this  is  ensured  by  their  de- 
praved nature.  But  on  all  those  whom  God  purposes  to  save, 
He  exerts  a  power,  renewing  and  persuading  the  will,  so  as  in- 
fallibly to  ensure  their  final  and  voluntary  submission  to  Christ. 
Hence  we  prefer  the  word  invincible  to  irresistible.  This  doc- 
trine we  prove,  by  all  those  texts  which  speak  of  God's  power 
in  regeneration  as  a  new  creation,  birth,  resurrection  ;  for  the 
idea  of  successful  resistance  to  these  processes,  on  the  part  of 
the  dead  matter,  or  corpse,  or  fcetiis,  is  preposterous.  Convic- 
tion may  be  resisted  ;  regeneration  is  invincible.  We  prove  it 
again  from  all  those  passages  which  exalt  the  divine  and  mighty 
power  exerted  in  the  work.  See  Eph.  i  :  19,  20;  Ps.  ex  :  3. 
Another  emphatic  proof  is  found  in  this,  that  otherwise,  God 
could  not  be  sure  of  the  conversion  of  all  those  He  purposed  to 
convert ;  yea,  not  of  a  single  one  of  them  ;  and  Christ  would 
have  no  assurance  that  He  should  ever  "  see  of  the  travail  of 


586  ,  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

His  soul  "  in  a  single  case  !  For,  in  order  for  God  to  be  sure  of 
the  result,  He  must  put  forth  power  adequate  to  overcome  all 
opposing  resistances.  But  see  all  those  passages,  in  which  the 
security  and  immutability  of  God's  purposes  of  grace  are  as- 
serted. Rom.  ix  :  21,  23  ;  Eph.  i  :  4;  John  xv  ;  16,  Sec,  &c. 
Eph.  ii  :  10. 

Here,  the  Arminian   rejoins,  that   God's   scientia  media,  or 

foreknowledge  of  the  contingent  acts  of  free 
InSequatr'^""''''"^"'  agents  (arising  not  from  His  purpose  of  con- 

trol  over  those  acts,  but  from  His  infinite  in- 
sight into  their  character,  and  the  way  it  will  act  under  foreseen 
circumstances),  enables  Him  to  foreknow  certainly  who  will  im- 
prove their  common  grace,  and  that  some  will.  His  eternal 
purposes  are  not  crossed,  therefore,  they  say,  because  He  only 
purposed  from  eternity  to  save  those  latter.  The  fatal  answer 
is,  that  if  the  acts  of  free  agents  are  certainly  foreseen,  even 
with  this  scientia  media,  they  are  no  longer  contingent,  but  cer- 
tain ;  and  worse  than  this  :  Man's  will  being  in  bondage,  all  the 
foreknowledge  which  God  has,  from  His  infinite  insight  into  hu- 
man character,  will  be  only  a  foreknowledge  of  obdurate  acts 
of  resistance  on  man's  part,  as  long  as  that  will  is  unsubdued. 
God's  foreknowledge,  in  that  case,  would  have  been  a  fore- 
knowledge that  every  son  of  Adam  would  resist  and  be  lost. 
The  only  foreknowledge  God  could  have,  of  any  cases  of  sub- 
mission, was  one  founded  on  His  own  decisive  purpose  to  make 
some  submit,  by  invincible  grace. 

The  Arminian  objects  again,  that  our  doctrine   represents 

man  as  dragged  reluctating  into  a   state  of 

whereas,  freedom  of  will,  and  hearty  concur- 
rence are  essential  elements  of  all  service  acceptable  to  God. 
The  answer  is,  that  the  sinner's  will  is  the  very  subject  of  this 
invincible  grace.  God  so  renews  it  that  it  neither  can  resist, 
nor  longer  wishes  to  resist.  But  this  objection  virtually  reap- 
pears in  the  next  part  of  the  question. 

Calvinists  are  accustomed   also  to  say,  in  opposition  to  all 

^,     ^    ,  ^     .     .      synergistic  views,  that  the  will  of  man  is  not 
Ihe  Soul  Passive  in  ■•         i      ,         i  •         •  ,•  t 

its  Quickening.    Proof,  active,  but  only  passive  m  regeneration.     In 

this  proposition,  it  is  only  meant  that  man's 
will  is  the  subject,  and  not  the  agent,  nor  one  of  the  agents  of 
the  distinctive  change.  In  that  renovating  touch,  which  revolu- 
tionizes the  active  powers  of  the  soul,  it  is  acted  on  and  not 
agent.  Yet,  activity  is  the  inahenable  atttribute  of  an  intelligent 
being;  and  in  the  process  of  conversion,  which  begins  instan- 
taneously with  regeneration,  the  soul  is  active  in  all  its  exercises 
towards  sin,  holiness,  God,  its  Saviour,  the  law,  &c.,  &c. 

This  doctrine  is  proved  by  the  natural  condition  of  the  active 
powers  of  the  soul.  Man's  propensities  are  wholly  and  cer- 
tainly directed  to  some  form  of  ungodliness,  and  to  impeniten- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  58/ 

cy.  How,  then,  can  the  will,  prompted  by  these  propensities, 
persuade  itself  to  anything  spiritually  good  and  penitent  ?  It 
is  expecting  a  cause  to  operate  in  a  direction  just  the  opposite 
to  its  nature — as  well  expect  gravity  to  raise  masses  flung  into 
the  air,  when  its  nature  is  to  bring  them  down.  And  this  is 
agreeable  to  the  whole  Bible  representation.  Does  the  fcetus 
procure  its  own  birth?  the  dead  body  its  own  resurrection?  the 
matter  of  creation  its  own  organization  ?  See,  especially,  John 
i  :  13.  Yet  this  will,  thus  renewed,  chooses  God,  and  acts  holi- 
ness, freely,  just  as  Lazarus,  when  resuscitated,  put  forth  the 
activities  of  a  living  man. 

The  objections  of  the  Arminian  may  all  be  summed  up  in 
this  :  that  sinners  are  commanded,  not  only  to  put  forth  all  the 
actings  of  the  renewed  nature,  such  as  believing,  turning  from 
sin,  loving  God,  &c.,  but  are  commanded  to  perform  the  very 
act  of  giving  their  hearts  to  God,  which  seems  to  contain  the 
very  article  of  regeneration.  See  Prov.  xxiii :  26  ;  Is.  i  :  16  ; 
Ezek.  xviii  :  31  ;  Deut.  x  :  i6. 

The  answer  is,  1st.     That  God's  precepts  are  no  test  of  the 

^, .     .  ,     extent  of  our  ability  of  will,  but  only  of  our 

Objection  Answered,     j  ttt,  r^        ,1  .     ^      ^ 

■'  duty.      When   our   Creator  has    given  to   us 

capacities  to  know  and  love  Him,  and  the  thing  which  prevents 
is  our  depraved  wills,  this  is  no  reason  why  He  should  or  ought 
to  cease  demanding  that  which  is  His  due.  If  the  moral  oppo- 
sition of  nature  into  which  God's  creatures  may  sink  themselves 
by  their  own  fault,  were  a  reason  why  He  should  cease  to  urge 
His  natural  rights  on  them.  He  would  soon  have  no  right  left. 
Again:  the  will, of  man,  when  renovated  by  grace,  needs  a  rule 
by  which  to  put  forth  its  renewed  activity,  just  as  the  eye,  re- 
lieved of  its  darkness  by  the  surgeon  needs  light  to  see.  Hence, 
we  provide  light  for  the  renovated  eye ;  not  that  light  alone 
could  make  the  blind  eye  see.  And  hence,  God  applies  His 
precepts  to  the  renovated  will,  in  order  that  it  may  have  a  law 
by  which  to  act  out  its  newly  bestowed,  spiritual  free-agency. 
But  3d,  and  chiefly :  These  objections  are  all  removed,  by  mak- 
ing a  sound  distinction  between  regeneration  and  conversion. 
In  the  latter  the  soul  is  active ;  and  the  acts  required  by  all  the 
above  passages,  are  the  soul's  (now  regenerate)  turning  to  God. 
The  salvability  of  any  heathen  without  the  gospel  is  intro- 
duced here,  because  the  question  illustrates 
S.S„tSSh».°  these  views  concerning  the  extent  of  the 
grace  of  redemption,  and  the  discussions  be- 
tween us  and  the  Arminians.  We  must  hold  that  Revelation 
gives  us  no  evidence  that  Pagans  can  find  salvation,  without 
Scriptural  means.  They  are  sinners.  The  means  in  their  reach 
appear  to  contain  no  salvation,  a.)  One  argument  is  this  :  All  of 
them  are  self-convicted  of  some  sin  (against  the  light  of  nature). 
"  Without  the  shedding  of  blood  is  no  remission."  But  the 
gospel  is  the  only  proposal  of  atonement  to  man.     b.)  Paganism 


■588  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

provides  nothing  to  meet  the  other  great  want  of  human  nature, 

an  agency  for  moral   renovation.     Is  any  man  more  spiritually 

minded  than  decent  children  of  the  Church  are,  because  he  is  a 

Pagan?     Do  they  need  the  new  birth  less  than  our  own  beloved 

offspring  ?     Then  it  must  be  at  least  as  true  of  the  heathen, 

that  except  they  be  born  again,  they  shall  not  see  the  kingdom. 

But  their  religions  present  no  agencies  for  regeneration.     They 

do  not  even  know  the  Word.     So   far  are  their  theologies  from 

any  sanctifying  influence,  their  morals  are  immoral,  their  deities 

criminals,  and  the  heaven  to  which  they  aspire  a  pandemonium 

of  sensual  sin  immortalized. 

Now,  the  Arminians   reject  this  conclusion,   thinking  God 

„   ,  TT  ■    .    cannot  iustly  condemn  any  man,  who  is   not 

God  no  more  Unjust     ^.,-',ri  ,  -^^/  .  , 

to  them  than  to  Non-    lurnisheci  With   sucli   means  01  knowmg  and 

Elect  under  the  Gos-   loving  Him,  as  put  his  destiny  in  every  sense 
P^'  within  his   own  choice.      These    means   the 

heathen  do  not  fully  possess,  where  their  ignorance  is  invincible. 
The  principle  asserted  is,  that  God  cannot  justly  hold  any  man 
responsible,  who  is  not  blessed  with  both  "  natural  and  moral 
ability."  I  answer,  that  our  doctrine  concerning  the  heathen 
puts  them  in  the  same  condition  with  those  unhappy  men  in 
Christian  lands,  who  have  the  outward  word,  but  experience  no 
effectual  calling  of  the  Spirit.  God  requires  the  latter  to  obey 
that  Law  and  Gospel,  of  which  they  enjoy  the  clearer  lights; 
and  the  obstacle  which  ensures  their  failure  to  obey  is,  indeed, 
not  any  physical  constraint,  but  an  inability  of  will.  Of  the 
heathen,  God  would  require  no  more  than  perfect  obedience  to 
the  light  of  nature ;  and  it  is  the  same  inability  of  will  which 
■ensures  their  failure  to  do  this.  Hence,  as  you  see,  the  doc- 
trine of  a  common  sufficient  grace,  and  of  the  salvability  of  the 
heathens,  are  parts  of  the  same  system.  So,  the  consistent 
Calvinist  is  able  to  justify  God  in  the  condemnation  of  adult 
heathens,  according  to  the  principles  of  Paul.  Rom.  ii  :  12. 
On  the  awful  question,  whether  all  heathens,  except  those  to 
whom  the  Church  carries  the  gospel,  are  certainly  lost,  it  does 
not  become  us  to  speak.  One  thing  is  certain  :  that  "there  is 
none  other  Name  under  heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we 
must  be  saved."  Acts  iv  :  12.  Guilt  must  be  expiated ;  and 
depravity  must  be  cleansed,  before  the  Pagan  (or  the  nominal 
Christian)  can  see  God.  Whether  God  makes  Christ  savingly 
known  to  some,  by  means  unknown  to  the  Church,  we  need  not 
determine.  We  are  sure  that  the  soul  which  "feels  after  Him 
if  haply  he  may  find  Him,"  will  not  be  cast  off  of  God,  because 
it  happens  to  be  outside  of  Christendom.  But  are  there  such  ? 
This  question  it  is  not  ours  to  answer.  We  only  know,  that 
God  in  the  Scriptures  always  enjoins  on  His  Church  that  energy 
and  effort  in  spreading  the  gospel,  which  would  be  appropriate, 
were  there  no  other  instrumentality  but  ours.  Here  is  the  meas- 
ure of  our  duty  concerning  foreign  missions. 


LECTURE  XLIX. 

ARMINIAN    THEORY    OF    REDEMPTION.— Concluded.- 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Are  God's  decrees  of  personal  election  conditional  or  unconditional  ? 
Turretin,  Loc.  iv,   Qu.  3,  §  1-7.     Qu.  11.  ^  10-24.     Loc.  xv,  Qu.  2,  3.     Hill, 
bk,  iv,   ch.  7,  10.     Dick,   Lect.    35.      Knapp,    Chr.  Theol.,  §  32.  and    Note. 
Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  26. 

2.  Show  the  relations  between  the  orthodox  views  of  effectual  calling  and  elec- 
tion, and  the  true  theory  of  the  will  and  free-agency,  (a).  That  the  natural  will  is 
certainly  detennined  to  carnality,  and  yet  free-agency  exists  therein,  (b).  That  the 
renewed  will,  after  it  is  sovereignly  renewed  to  godliness,  and  efficaciously  preserved 
therein,  is  yet  more  free  :     And  therefore,  responsibility  exists  in  both  states. 

See  Lect.  11.  above  on  the  Will.  Turrettin,  Loc.  x,  Qu.  4.  Southern  Presbn.  Rev., 
Oct.  1876,  July  and  Oct.,  1877.  Articles  on  Theory  of  Vohtion.  Alexander's 
"  Moral  Science,"  chs.  16  to  18.  Hill,  bk.  iv.  ch.  9,  ^  3.  Edwards  on  the 
Will,  pt.  i,  ch.  3,  and  pt.  iii.  Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  28,  g  3.  Anselm.  Ctir 
Dens  Hotno.,  pt.  i,  ch.  24. 

'  I  "*HE  favourite  Arminian  dogma,  that  God's  will  concerning 
the  salvation  of  individuals  is  conditioned  on  His  simple 

I.  Conditional  De-  foresight  of  their  improvement  of  their  com- 
crees  are  Imphed  in  mon  grace,  in  genuine  faith,  repentance,  and 
Synergism.  holy  obedience,  is  necessary  to  the  coherency 

of  their  system.  If  grace  is  invincible,  and  all  true  faith, 
&c.,  are  its  fruits,  then  God's  purpose  as  to  working  them 
must  be  absolute  in  this  sense.  If  grace  is  only  synergistic, 
and  the  sinner's  free  will  alone  decides  the  question  of  resisting 
it,  or  co-operating  with  it,  then,  of  course,  the  sovereignty  of 
decision,  in  this  matter,  is  in  the  creature,  and  not  in  God  ;  and 
He  must  be  guided  in  His  purpose  by  what  it  is  foreseen  the 
creature  will  choose  to  do.  Thus  we  reach,  by  a  corollary  from 
the  Arminian  doctrine  of  "  Calling,"  that  which  in  time  is  first, 
the  nature  of  the  Divine  purpose  about  it.  The  student  is  here 
referred  to  the  Lecture  on  the  Decree.  But  as  the  sub- 
ject is  so  illustrative  of  the  two  theories  of  redemption,  the 
Arminian  and  the  orthodox,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  discuss 
the  same  thing  again,  and  to  reproduce  some  of  the 
same    ideas. 

And  let  me  begin  by  reminding  you  of  that  plain  distinc- 

The  Result  May  be  ^ion,  by  the  neglect  of  which,  Arminians  get 
Conditioned,  and  not  all  the  plausibility  of  their  view.  It  is  one 
the  Decree.  \hmg   to    Say  that,    in   the    Divine  will,    the 

result  purposed  is  conditioned  on  the  presence  of  its  means  ; 
another  thing  to  say  that,  God's  purpose  about  it  is  also  con- 
ditioned or  dependent  on  the  presence  of  its  means.  The 
former  is  true,  the  latter  false.  And  this,  because  the  presence 
of  the  means  is  itself  efficaciously  included  in  this  same  Divine 
purpose.  Thus,  a  believer's  salvation  is  doubtless  dependent 
589 


590  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

on  his  repentance ;  in  the  sense  that,  if  he  does  not  repent,  he 
will  not  be  saved.  But  God's  purpose  to  save  him  is  not  de- 
pendent on  his  choosing  to  repent  ;  for  one  of  the  things 
which  God's  purpose  efficaciously  determines  is,  that  this 
believer  shall  have  grace  to  repent.  Remember,  also,  that  when 
we  say  God's  election  is  not  dependent  on  the  believer's  fore- 
seen faith,  &c.,  we  do  not  represent  the  Divine  purpose  as  a 
motiveless  caprice.  It  is  a  resolve  founded  most  rationally, 
doubtless,  on  the  best  of  reasons — only,  the  superior  faith  and 
penitence  of  that  man  were  not,  a  priori  among  them  ;  because 
had  not  God  already  determined,  from  some  better  reasons 
unknown  to  us,  that  man  would  never  have  had  any  faith  or 
repentance  to  foresee.  And  this  is  a  perfect  demonstration,  as 
well  as  a  Scriptural  one.  The  Arminian  opinion  makes  an  effect 
the  cause  of  its  own  cause.  And  that  our  faith,  &c.,  are  effects 
of  our  calhng  and  election,  see  Rom.  viii  :  29  ;  Eph.  i  :  4,  5  ; 
2  Thes.  ii :  13  ;   i  Cor.  iv  :  7;  Jno.  xv  :  16. 

(b).  But   to  this  I   may  add    the  same  idea    in  substance, 
Providence    Makes    )!^^^^^^    ^    "sed_   against    Common    Sufficient 
Sovereign  Distinctions    Grace :  That,   in    fact,  differences  are  made, 
in  Men's  Outward  Op-    Jn  the  temperaments  and  characters,  oppor- 
portunities.    Especially     .        •,•  j  •    -i  r     •      i-    •  1       ,  1 

of  Infants,  tunities    and     privileges   01    individuals    and 

nations,  which  practically  result  in  the  death 
of  some  in  sin.  Thus  :  what  practical  opportunity,  humanly 
speaking,  had  the  man  born  in  Tahiti,  in  the  i8th  century,  for 
redemption  through  Christ  ?  Now  the  Arminian  himself  admits 
an  election  of  races  or  nations  to  such  privilege,  which  is  sov- 
ereign. Does  not  this  imply  a  similar  disposal  of  the  fate  of 
individuals  ?  Can  an  infinite  understanding  fail  to  comprehend 
the  individuals,  in  disposing  of  the  destiny  of  the  mass?  But, 
under  this  head  especially,  I  remark :  the  time  of  every  man's 
death  is  decided  by  a  sovereign  Providence.  But  by  deter- 
mining this  sovereignly,  God  very  often  practically  decides  the 
man's  eternal  destiny.  Much  more  obvious  is  this,  in  the  case 
of  infants.  According  to  Arminians,  all  that  die  in  infancy  are 
saved.  So,  then,  God's  purpose  to  end  their  mortal  life  in 
infancy  is  His  purpose  to  save  them.  But  this  purpose  cannot 
be  formed  from  any  foresight  of  their  faith  or  repentance  ;  be- 
cause they  have  none  to  foresee,  being  saved  without  them. 

(c).  God's  foresight  of  believers'  faith  and  repentance  im- 

--  „  ^  . ,     plies  the  certainty,  or  "  moral  necessity  "  of 

If   Foreseen,    Faith    i,  ,        .      ,     ■"  ,  .^      , 

Must  be  Certain.  tiiese  acts,  just  as  much  as  a  sovereign  de- 

cree. For  that  which  is  certainly  foreseen 
must  be  certain.  The  only  evasion  from  this  is  the  absurdity 
of  Adam  Clarke,  that  God  chooses  not  to  foreknow  certain 
things,  or  the  impiety  of  the  Socinians,  that  He  cannot  fore- 
know some  things.  On  both,  we  may  remark,  that  if  this  faith 
and  repentance  are  not  actually  foreknown,  they  cannot  be  the 
bases  of  any  resolve  on  God's  part. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  59I 

(d)  That  any  purposes  of  God  should  depend  on  the  acts  of  a 
creature  having  an  indeterminate,  contingent 
CannrbfcondhS  will,  such  ES  the  Arminian  describes,  is 
on  a  Mutable  Cause,  incompatible  with  their  immutability  and 
Scripture.  eternity.    But  all  His  decrees  are  such.      See 

Ps.  xxxiii :  ii;  2  Tim.  ii :  19;  Eph.  i :  4:  Is.  xlvi :  10.  In  a 
word,  this  doctrine  places  the  sovereignty  in  the  creature, 
instead  of  God,  and  makes  Him  wait  on  His  own  servant.  It  is 
disparaging  to  God. 

Last :  This  very  purpose  of  individual  election  to  salva- 
tion is  often  declared  to  be  uncaused  by  any  foreseen  good  in 
us.     See  Matt,  xi :  26:  Rom.  ix:   11-16:  xi :  5,  6,  etc. 

But  Arminians  cite  many  passages,  in  which  they  assert, 
Texts  Seemin.iT  t  o  God's  resolve  as  to  what  He  shall  do  to  men 
Express  a  Conditioned  is  conditioned  on  their  good  or  bad  conduct. 
Purpose.  They  are  such  as  i  Sam.  xiii :    13  ;   Ps.  Ixxxi : 

13,  14:  Luke  vii:  30;  Ezek.  xviii :  21,  etc.;  Luke  xix :  42.  Our 
opponents  here  make  an  obvious  confusion  of  things,  which 
should  be  distinguished.  When  God  preceptively  reveals  a 
connection  between  two  alternative  lines  of  conduct,  and  their 
respective  results,  as  established  by  His  law  or  promise,  he  does 
not  at  all  reveal  anything  thereby,  as  to  what  He  purposes  with 
reference  to  permitting  or  procuring  the  exercise  of  that  conduct 
by  man.  Of  course,  it  does  not  imply  that  His  purpose  on 
this  point  is  contingent  to  Him,  or  that  the  consequent  results 
were  uncertain  to  Him.  We  have  seen  that  many  of  the 
results  decreed  by  God  were  dependent  on  means  which  man 
employed  ;  but  that  God's  resolve  was  not  dependent,  because 
it  secretly  embraced  their  performance  of  those  instrumental 
acts  also.  But  the  proof  that  the  Arminians  misconstrue  those 
Scripture  instances,  is  this  :  That  the  Bible  itself  contains  many 
instances  of  these  conditional  threats  and  promises,  and 
expressions  of  compassion,  where  yet  the  result  of  them  is 
expressly  foretold.  If  expressly  predicted,  they  must  have  been 
predetermined.  See,  then.  Is.  i :  19,  20,  compared  with  vii: 
17-20.       And,   more  striking  yet.  Acts  xxvii :  23-25,  with  31. 

Rom.   ix  :    11-18,  is  absolutely   conclusive   against    condi- 

.  tional    election.     The  only  evasion  by  which 

from  Rom.  ch.llTf  n.  ^^^  Arminian  can  escape  its  force,  is,  that  this 
passage  teaches  only  a  national  election  of 
Israel  and  Edom,  represented  in  their  patriarchs,  Jacob  and 
Esau,  to  the  outward  privileges  of  the  Gospel.  We  reply,  as 
before,  that  Jacob  and  Esau  certainly  represented  themselves 
also,  so  that  here  are  two  cases  of  unconditional  predestination. 
But  Paul's  scope  shows  that  the  idea  is  false :  for  that  scope  is 
to  explain,  how,  on  his  doctrine  of  justification  by  grace,  many 
members  of  Israel  were  lost,  notwithstanding  equal  outward 
privileges.  And  in  answering  this  question,  the  Apostle  evi- 
dently dismisses  the  corporate  or  collective,  in  order  to  consider 


592  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  individual  relation  to  God's  plan  and  purpose.  See  the 
verses  8,  15,  24.  That  the  election  was  not  merely  to  privilege, 
is  clearly  proved  by  the  allusion  of  verse  8,  compared  with 
verses  4,  21,  24. 

2.     I  am  now  to  show  that  the  Calvinistic  scheme  is    con- 
sistent, and   the   Arminian  inconsistent,  with 

Calvinistic     V  i  e  w    ^he  philosophical  theory  of  the  will  and  free- 
Arreeable  to  the  Irue  ^  t  ^  r  -r 

Nature  of  the  Will.         agency.      Let  me  here  refer  you  to  Lecture 

xi,  where  the  true  doctrine  of  the  will  is 
stated  and  defended,  and  request  you,  if  your  mastery  of  the 
views  there  given  is  not  perfect,  to  return  and  make  it  so, 
before  proceeding.  While  I  shall  not  repeat  the  arguments,, 
the  definition  of  the  true  doctrine  is  so  important  (and  has"  so 
often  been  imperfectly  made  by  Calvinists),  that  I  shall  take  the 
liberty  to  restate  it. 

The  Arminian  says  that    free-agency  consists    in    the  self- 

Th  f   1       determining  power  of  the  will,  as  a  distinct 

Will  Stated.^*^  °     ^^    faculty   in  the    soul.       The  Calvinist  says,   it 

consists  in  the  self-determining  power  of  the 
soul.  An  Arminian  says  an  agent  is  only  free,  when  he  has- 
power  to  choose  as  the  will  may  determine  itself  either  way, 
irrespective  of  the  stronger  motive.  The  Calvinist  says  that  an 
agent  is  free,  when  he  has  power  to  act  as  his  own  will  chooses. 
The  Arminian  says  that  in  order  to  be  free,  the  agent  must  be 
exempt  from  the  efficient  influence  of  his  own  motives ;  the 
Calvinist,  that  he  must  be  exempt  from  co-action,  or  external 
constraint;  The  Arminian  says,  that  in  order  to  be  free,  the 
agent  must  always  be  capable  of  having  a  volition  uncaused. 
The  Calvinist  says  that  if  an  agent  has  a  volition  uncaused,  he 
cannot  possibly  be  free  therein,  because  that  vohtion  would  be 
wholly  irrational  ;  the  agent  would  therein  be  simply  a  brute. 
Every  free,  rational,  responsible  volition  is  such,  precisely 
because  it  is  caused  i.  e.  by  the  agent's  own  motives;  the 
rational  agent  is  morally  judged  for  his  volitions  according  to 
their  motives,  or  causes. 

But  when  we  ask :     What  is  the  motive  of  a  rational  voli- 
.  J    .  ^  tion,  we  must  make  that  distinction  which  all 

Arminians,  and  many  Calvinists  heedlessly 
overlook  between  motive  and  inducement.  The  object  offered 
to  the  soul  as  an  inducement  to  choose  is  not  the  cause,  the 
motive  of  the  choice  ;  but  only  the  occasion.  The  true  effi- 
cient cause  is  something  of  the  soul's  own,  something  subjective; 
namely,  the  soul's  own  appetency  according  to  his  prevalent, 
subjective  disposition.  The  volition  is  not  efficaciously  caused 
by  the  inducement  or  object  which  appeals,  but  by  the  dispo- 
sition which  is  appealed  to.  Thus,  the  causative  spring  of  a 
free  agent's  action  is  within,  not  without  him  ;  according  to  the 
testimony  of  our  consciousness.  (The  theory  which  makes  the 
objective  inducement  the  true  cause  of  volition,  is  from  that  old^ 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  593 

mischievous,  sensualistic  psychology,  which  has  always  been 
such  a  curse  to  theology).  But  then,  this  inward  or  subjective 
spring  of  action  is  not  lawless  ;  it  is  not  indeterminate  ;  if  it  were, 
the  agent  would  have  neither  rationality  nor  character;  and 
its  action  would  be  absolutely  blind  and  brutish.  This  sub- 
jective spring  has  a  law  of  its  own  activity — that  is  to  say,  its 
self-action  is  o-f  a  determinate  character  (of  one  sort  or  another). 
And  that  character  is  what  is  meant  by  the  radical  habitus,  or 
natural  disposition  of  the  agent.  And  this  subjective  disposi- 
tion is  what  gives  uniform  quality  to  that  series  of  acts,  by 
which  common  sense  estimates  the  character  of  an  agent.  (And 
this,  as  we  saw,  was  a  sufficient  proof  of  our  doctrine ;  that 
otherwise,  the  exhibition  of  determinate  character  by  a  free 
agent,  would  be  impossible).  God  is  an  excellent  Agent, 
because  He  has  holy  origmal  disposition.  Satan  is  a  wicked 
agent,  because  he  has  an  unholy  disposition,  etc. 

Now,  this  liabiUis  or  disposition  of  soul  is  not  by  any 
means  always  absolutely  simple ;  it  is  a  com- 
Disposition  What?  ^^^^  ^^  cQx\^:m  active  principles,  with  mental 
habitudes  proceeding  therefrom,  and  modified  by  outward  cir- 
cumstances. With  reference  to  some  sorts  of  outward  induce- 
ments, these  active  principles  may  act  with  less  uniformity  and 
determinateness  ;  with  reference  to  others,  with  more.  Here, 
modifying  outward  influences  may  change  the  direction  of  the 
principles.  The  avaricious  man  is  sometimes  prompted  to  gen- 
erous volitions,  for  instance.  But  our  common  sense  recog- 
nizes this  truth  :  that  the  more,  original  and  primary  of  those 
active  principles  constituting  a  being's  disposition  or  habitus, 
are  perfectly  determinate  and  uniform  in  their  action.  For 
instance  :  no  being,  when  happiness  and  suffering  are  the  alter- 
natives, is  ever  prompted  by  his  own  disposition,  to  choose  the 
suffering  for  its  own  sake  ;  no  being  is  ever  prompted,  applause 
or  reproach  being  equally  in  its  reach,  to  prefer  the  reproach  to 
the  applause  for  its  own  sake.  And  last :  this  disposition,  while 
never  the  effect  of  specific  acts  of  volition  (being  always  a  priori 
thereto,  and  cause  of  them)  is  spontaneous ;  that  is,  in  exercis- 
ing the  disposition,  both  in  consideration  and  choice,  the  being 
is  self-prompted.  When  arguing  against  the  Pelagian  sophism, 
that  man  could  not  be  responsible  for  his  disposition,  because 
it  is"  involuntary,"  I  showed  you  the  ambiguity  wrapped  up  in 
that  word.  Of  course,  anything  which,  like  disposition,  pre- 
cedes volition,  cannot  be  voluntary  in  the  sense  of  proceeding 
out  of  a  volition  ;  what  goes  before  of  course  does  not  follow 
after  the  same  thing.  But  the  question  is,  "  whether  disposition 
is  self-prompted."  There  is  a  true  sense  in  which  we  intui- 
tively know  that  a  man  ought  not  to  be  made  responsible  for 
what  is  "involuntar}^,"  viz.:  for  what  happens  against  his  will. 
But  does  any  man's  own  disposition  subsist  against  his  will  ?  If 
it  did  it  would  not  be  his  own.  There  is  here  a  fact  of  com- 
38* 


594  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

mon  sense,  which  is  very  strangely  overlooked  ;  that  a  man  may 
most  freely  prefer  what  is  natural  to  him,  and  in  that  sense  his 
prior  to  his  volition  choosing  it.  Let  a  simple  instance  serve. 
Here  is  a  young  gentleman  to  whom  nature  has  given  beautiful 
and  silky  black  hair.  He,  himself,  thinks  it  very  pretty,  and 
altogether  prefers  it.  Does  he  not  thereby  give  us  as  clear,  and 
as  free  an  expression  of  his  taste  in  hair,  as  though  he  had 
selected  a  black  wig?  So,  were  he  to  purchase  hair  dye  to 
change  his  comely  locks  to  a  "  carroty  red,/  we  should  regard 
hirn  as  evincing,  ver}^  bad  taste..  But  I  ask,  if  we  saw  another 
whom  nature  had  endowed  with  "  carroty  red  hair,"  glorying  in 
it  with  pride  and  preference,  we  should  doubtless  esteem  him 
guilty  of  precisely  the  same  bad  taste,  and  precisely  as  free 
therein  as  the  other.  But  the  colour  of  his  hair  was  determined 
by  nature,  not  by  his  original  selection.  Now,  my  question  is : 
must  we  not  judge  the  moral  preference  just  as  free  in  the  paral- 
lel case,  as  the  aesthetic  ?  I  presume  that  every  reflecting 
mind  will  give  an  affirmative  answer.  If,  for  instance,  a  wicked 
man  made  you  the  victim  of  his  extortion,  or  his  malice,  you 
would  not  think  it  any  palliation  to  be  told  by  him  that  he  was 
naturally  covetous  or  malignant,  nor  would  you  be  satisfied  by 
the  plea,  that  this  evil  disposition  was  not  at  first  introduced 
into  his  soul  by  his  personal  act  of  soul ;  while  yet  he  confessed 
that  he  was  entirely  content  with  it  and  cherished  it  with  a 
thorough  preference.  In  fine :  whether  the  moral  agent  is  free 
in  entertaining  his  connate  disposition,  may  be  determined  by 
a  very  plain  test.  Does  any  other  agent  compel  him  to  feel  it, 
or  does  he  feel  it  of  himself?  The  obvious  answer  discloses 
this  fact ;  that  disposition  is  the  most  intimate  function  of  our 
self-hood,  and  this,  whether  connate  or  self-induced. 

Is  not  this  now   the    psychology  of    common  sense    and 
This  Theory  Obvi-    consciousness  ?     Its  mere  statement  is  sufii- 
ous.    Calvinism  in    ciently  evincive  of  its  truth.       But  you  have 
Harmony  with  it.  seen  a  number  of  arguments  by  which  it  is 

demonstrated,  and  the  rival  theory  reduced  to  absurdity.  Now, 
our  assertion  is,  that  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  effectual  caUing 
is  agreeable  to  these  facts  of  our  free-agency,  and  the  Arminian 
inconsistent  with  them. 

(a.)  First,  the  equilibrium  of  will,  to  which  Arminians  sup- 

^         ^  r.        pose  the  gospel    restores  all  sinners,  through 

Grace   Cannot  Pro-     ^  rr^  ■      ^  111  .. 

duce   an   Equilibrium    common  sumcicnt  gracc,  would  be  an  unnat- 

between  Holiness  and  ural  and  absurd  State  of  soul,  if  it  existed. 
^'"-  You  will  remember  that  the  Wesleyans    (the 

Arminian  school  which  we  meet)  admit  that  man  lost  equilib- 
rium of  will  in  the  fall ;  but  say  that  it  is  restored  through 
Christ ;  and  that  this  state  is  necessary  to  make  man  truly  free 
and  responsible  in  choosing  the  Saviour.  But  we  have  shown 
that  such  a  state  is  impossible  for  an  active  agent,  and  irra- 
tional.    So  far  as  it  existed,  it  would  only  show  the  creature's 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  595 

action  irrational,  like  that  of  the  beasts.  Hence,  the  evangel- 
ical choice  arising  in  such  a  state  would  be  as  motiveless,  as 
reasonless,  and  therefore,  as  devoid  of  right  moral  character,  as 
the  act  of  a  man  walking  in  his  sleep.  And,  to  retort  the  Armin- 
ian's  favourite  conclusion,  all  the  so-called  gracious  states  of 
penitence,  &c.,  growing  out  of  that  choice,  must  be  devoid  of 
right  moral  quality,  how  can  those  exercises  of  soul  have  that 
quality  ?  Only  as  they  are  voluntary,  and  prompted  by  right 
moral  motives.  But  as  we  have  seen,  motive  is  subjective;  so 
that  the  action  of  soul  cannot  acquire  right  moral  quality 
until  it  is  prompted  by  right  moral  disposition.  Hence,  if 
that  common  sufficient  grace  were  anything  at  all,  it  would 
be  the  grace  of  moral  renovation  ;  all  who  had  it  would  be 
regenerate. 

(b.)  Second  :  We  have  seen  that  the  notionof  a  moralagent 

The  Natural  Will  without  determinate,  subjective  moral  char- 
Decisively  Bent  to  acter,  of  some  sort,  is  absurd.  The  radical, 
Carnality.  ruling  habiUis  has  some  decisive  bent    of   its 

own,  some  way  or  other.  Is  not  this  simply  to  say  that  dispo- 
sition is  disposed  ?  The  question  of  fact  then  arises,  which  is 
the  bent  or  determinate  direction,  which  man's  natural  disposi- 
tion has,  touching  spiritual  things  ?  Is  it  for,  or  against  ?  Or, 
as  a  question  of  fact,  is  the  disposition  of  mankind  naturally, 
and  uniformly  either  way?  Or,  are  some  men  one  way  dis- 
posed by  nature,  and  some  the  other,  as  to  this  object?  The 
answer  is,  that  they  are  all  naturally  disposed,  in  the  main,  the 
same  way,  and  that,  against  the  spiritual  claims  of  Christ  and 
God.  What  are  these  claims  ?  That  the  sinner  shall  choose 
the  holy  will  of  God  over  his  own,  and  His  favour  over  sensual, 
earthly,  and  sinful  joys  in  all  their  forms.  Nothing  less  than 
this  is  evangelical  repentance  and  obedience.  Now  note,  we 
do  not  say  that  no  men  ever  choose  any  formal  act  of  obedi- 
ence by  nature.  Nor,  that  no  man  ever  desires  (what  he  con- 
ceives to  be)  future  blessedness  by  nature.  Nor,  that  every 
natural  man  is  as  much  bent  on  all  forms  of  rebellion,  as  every 
other.  But  we  assert,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  all  naturally  pre- 
fer self-will  to  God's  holy  will,  and  earthly,  sensual,  and  sinful 
joys  (in  some  forms)  to  God's  favour  and  communion  ;  that  this 
is  the  original,  fundamental,  spontaneous  disposition  of  all ;  and 
that  in  all  essential  alternatives  between  self  and  God,  the  dis- 
position is,  in  the  natural  man,  absolutely  determinate  and  cer- 
tain. If  this  is  true,  then  the  unconverted  man  without  sov- 
ereign grace  is  equally  certain  to  choose  carnally,  and  equally 
a  free  agent  in  choosing  so. 

But  that  such  is  the  determinate  disposition  of  every    nat- 

Provedby  Con-  ural  man,  is  obvious  both  from  experience 
sciousness  and  Exper-  and  from  Scripture.  Every  renewed  man, 
^^"'^^'  in  reviewing  his  own  purposes,  is  conscious 

that,  before  regeneration,  self-will  was,  as  against  God,   abso- 


50  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

lutely  dominant  in  all  his  feelings  and  purposes;  of  which  no 
stronger  test  can  be  imagined  than  this  conscious  fact ;  that  the 
very  best  religious  impulses  to  which  his  soul  could  be  spurred 
by  remorse  or  alarm,  were  but  modifications  of  self-will,  (self- 
righteousness.)  Every  true  Christian  looks  back  to  the  time 
when  he  vras  absolutely  incompetent  to  find,  or  even  to  imag- 
ine, any  spontaneous  good  or  joy  in  anything  except  carnality; 
and  the  only  apprehension  it  was  possible  for  him  to  have  of 
God's  service,  in  looking  forward  to  the  time  when,  he  sup- 
posed, the  fear  of  hell  would  compel  him  to  undertake  it,  was  of 
a  constraint  and  a  sacrifice.  So,  when  we  look  w^ithout,  while 
we  see  a  good  many  in  the  state  of  nature,  partially  practising 
many  secular  virtues,  and  even  rendering  to  God  some  self- 
righteous  regards,  we  see  none  preferring  God's  will  and  favour 
to  self-will  and  earth.  All  regard  such  a  choice  as  an  evil 
per  se\  all  shrink  from  it  obstinately;  all  do  so  under  induce- 
ments to  embrace  it  which  reasonably  ought  to  be  immense  and 
ovenvhelming.  The  experimental  evidence,  that  this  carnality 
is  the  original  and  determinate  law  of  their  disposition,  is  as 
complete  as  that  which  shows  the  desire  of  happiness  is  a  law  of 
their  disposition.  And  all  this  remains  true  of  sinners  under 
the  gospel,  of  sinners  enlightened,  of  sinners  convicted  and 
awakened  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  His  common  operations ; 
which  is  a  complete,  practical  proof  that  there  is  not  any  such- 
sufficient  grace,  common  to  all,  as  brings  their  wills  into  equi- 
librium about  evangelical  good.  For  those  are  just  the  ele- 
ments which  the  Arminians  name,  as  making  up  that  grace  i 
and  we  see  that  where  they  are,  still  there  is  no  equilib- 
rium, but  the  old,  spontaneous,  native  bent,  obstinately  dom- 
inant still. 

The    decisiveness   of  that    disposition    is    also    asserted  in 

Scripture    in    the    strongest    possible    terms. 

Proved  by  Scripture.    ^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^j^^  .  servants  of  sin,"  Jno.  viii  : 

34  ;  Rom.  vi  :  20  ;  2  Pet.  ii  :  19.  They  are  "sold  under  sin." 
Rom.  vii  :  14.  They  are  "  in  the  bond  of  iniquity."  Acts  viii  : 
23.  They  are  "  dead  in  sins."  Eph.  ii  :  i.  They  are  "blind;" 
yea,  "blindness"  itself  Eph.  iv .:  18.  Their  "hearts  are 
stony."  Ezek.  xxxvi  :  26.  They  are  "  impotent  "  for  evan- 
gelical good.  2  Cor.  iii  :  5  ;  Jno.  xv  :  5  ;  Rom.  v  :  6  ;  Matt, 
vii  :  18  ;  xii  :  34  ;  Jno.  vi  :  44.  "The  carnal  mind  is  enmity, 
and  cannot  be  subject  to  the  law  of  God."  Rom.  viii  :  7. 
Surely  these,  with  the  multitude  of  similar  testimonies,  are 
enough  to  prove  against  all  ingenious  glosses,  that  our  view  of 
man's  disposition  is  true.  But  if  man's  free-agency  is  misdi- 
rected by  such  active  principles  as  these,  original,  uniform, 
absolutely  decisive,  it  is  folly  to  suppose  that  the  mighty  revo- 
lution to  holiness  can  originate  in  that  free-agency;  it  must 
originate  without,  in  almighty  grace. 

Nor  is  it  hard  for  the  mind  which  has  comprehended  this- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  59/ 

philosophy  of  common  sense  and  experience, 
SuJaJede^e'ronsilit;.  to  solve  the  current  Arminian  objection  ;  that 
the  man  in  such  a  state  of  will  cannot  be  re- 
sponsible or  blameworthy  for  his  continued  impenitency.  This 
"  inability  of  will "  does  not  supersede  either  free-agency  or 
responsibility. 

There  is  here   an  obvious    distinction  from   that  external 

coaction,  which  the  reason  and  conscience  of 

Inability  Defined.       ^^^^^  ^^^    recognizes    as    a    different  state, 

which  would  supersede  responsibility.  The  Calvinists  of  the 
school  of  Jonathan  Edwards  make  frequent  use  of  the  terms, 
"  moral  inability,"  "  natural  inability,"  to  express  that  plain, 
old  distinction.  Turrettin  teaches  us  that  they  are  not  new.  In 
his  Locus,  X,  que.  4,  §  39,  40,  you  will  find  some  very  sensible 
remarks,  which  shov/  that  this  pair  of  terms  is  utterly  ambigu- 
ous and  inappropriate,  however  good  the  meaning  of  the  Calvin- 
ists who  used  them.  I  never  employ  them.  That  state  which 
they  attempt  to  describe  as  "  moral  inability,"  our  Confession 
more  accurately  calls,  loss  of  aU  "  ability  of  wih."  (Ch.  ix  : 
§  3).  It  should  be  remarked  here,  that  in  this  phrase,  and  in 
many  similar  ones  of  our  Confession,  the  word  "  will  "  is  used 
in  a  sense  more  comprehensive  than  the  specific  faculty  of 
choosing.  It  means  the  "  conative  powers,"  (so  called  by 
Hamilton,)  including  with  that  specific  function,  the  whole 
active  power  of  soul.  The  "  inability,"  then,  which  we  impute 
to  the  natural  man,  and  which  does  not  supersede  responsibility, 
while  it  does  make  his  voluntary  continuance  in  impenitence 
absolutely  certain,  and  his  turning  of  himself  to  true  holiness 
impossible,  is  a  very  distinct  thing  from  that  physical  coaction, 
and  that  natural  lack  of  essential  faculties,  either  of  which 
would  be  inconsistent  with  moral  obligation.  It  is  thus  defined 
in  Hodge's  outlines :  "Ability  consists  in  the  power  of  the 
agent  to  change  his  own  subjective  state,  to  make  himself  pre- 
fer what  he  does  not  prefer,  and  to  act  in  a  given  case  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  co-existent  desires  and  preferences  of  the  agent's 
own  heart."  I  will  close  with  a  statement  of  the  distinction, 
which  I  uttered  under  very  responsible  circumstances.  "All 
intelligent  Calvinists  understand  very  well,  that  "  inability"  con- 
sists not  in  the  extinction  of  any  of  the  powers  which  consti- 
tuted man  the  creature  he  was  before  Adam's  fall,  and  which 
made  his  essence  as  a  religious  being  ;  but  in  the  thorough 
moral  perversion  of  them  all.  The  soul's  essence  is  not  de- 
stroyed by  the  fall ;  if  it  were,  in  any  part,  man's  responsibility 
would  be  to  that  extent  modified.  But  all  his  faculties  and  sus- 
ceptibilities now  have  a  decisive  and  uniform,  a  native  and  uni- 
versal, a  perpetual  and  total  moral  perversion,  by  reason  of  the 
utter  revolt  of  his  will  from  God  and  holiness,  to  self-will  and 
sin ;  such  that  it  is  impossible  for  him,  in  his  own  free  will,  to 
choose  spiritual  good  for  its  own  sake." 


59^  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

(c)  Regeneration,  correspondingly,  does  not  constrain  a 
Regeneration  does  3-  ^^.n  to  will  against  his  dispositions ;  but  it 
not  Violate,  but  Per-  renews  the  dispositions  themselves.  It  re- 
fects Free-agency,  verses  the  morbid  and  perverse  bias  of  the 
will.  It  rectifies  the  action  of  all  faculties  and  affections, 
previously  perverted  by  that  bias.  God's  people  are  "  willing  in 
the  day  of  His  power."  Ps.  ex  :  3.  "  He  worketh  in  them 
both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure."  Phil,  ii  :  13.  In 
that  believers  now  form  holy  volitions  at  the  prompting  of  their 
own  subjective  principles,  unconstrained  by  force,  they  are  pre- 
cisely as  free  as  when,  before,  they  spontaneously  formed  sinful 
volitions  at  the  prompting  of  their  opposite  evil  principles.  But 
in  that  the  action  of  intellect  and  desire  and  conscience  is  now 
rectified,  purified,  ennobled,  by  the  divine  renovation,  the  be- 
liever is  more  free  than  he  was  before.  "  He  cannot  sin,  because 
the  living  and  incorruptible  seed"  of  which  he  is  born  again 
"liveth  and  abideth  in  him."  Thus,  regeneration,  though 
almighty,  does  not  infringe  free-agency,  but  perfects  it. 

The  standing  Arminian   objection   is,   that  man  cannot  be 
-^, .    ,.     e  ,    J        praise-  or  blame-worthy,  for  what  does  not 

Objection  Solved.         '■  ,  ^  ,  .  -^'        .,,        ^.^  ... 

proceed  from  his  own  free-will.  Hence,  if  he 
does  not  primarily  choose  a  new  heart,  but  it  is  wrought  in  him 
by  another,  he  has  no  more  moral  credit,  either  for  the  change 
or  its  consequences,  than  for  the  native  colour  of  his  hair.  This 
objection  is,  as  you  have  seen,  of  a  Pelagian  source.  By  the 
same  argument  Adam  could  have  had  no  concreated  righteous- 
ness ;  but  we  saw  that»the  denial  of  it  to  him  was  absurd.  By 
the  same  reasoning  God  Himself  could  have  no  moral  credit 
for  His  holy  volitions  ;  for  He  never  chose  a  righteousness, 
having  been  eternally  and  necessarily  righteous.  We  might 
reply,  also,  that  the  new  and  holy  state  is  chosen  by  the  regene- 
rate man,  for  his  will  is  as  free  and  self-moved,  when  renovated, 
in  preferring  his  own  renovation,  as  it  ever  was  in  sinners. 

To  sum  up,  then :  The  quickening  touch  of  the  Holy 
This  Because  the  ^^"^^^t  operates,  not  to  contravene  any  of  the 
Spirit  Moulds  Disposi-  free  actings  of  the  will ;  but  to  mould  dispo- 
tion  a.  priori  to  the  sitions  wliich  lie  back  of  it.  Second  :  all  the 
subsequent  right  volitions  of  the  regenerate 
soul  are  in  view  of  inducements  rationally  presented  to  it.  The 
Spirit  acts,  not  across  man's  nature,  but  according  to  its  better 
law.  Third  :  the  propensities  by  which  the  renev/ed  volitions 
are  determined  are  now  noble,  not  ignoble,  harmonious,  not 
confused  and  hostile  ;  and  rational,  not  unreasonable.  Man  is 
most  truly  free  when  he  has  his  soul  most  freely  subjected  to 
God's  holy  will.  See  those  illustrious  passages  in  John  viii  : 
36  ;  2  Cor.  iii  :  17  ;  Rom.  viii  :  21.  Since  this  blessed  work  is 
like  the  free-agency  which  it  reinstates,  one  wholly  unique 
among  the  actions  of  God,  and  essentially  different  from  alf 
physical    effects,  it    cannot    receive    any    adequate  illustration. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  599 

Any  parallel  attempted,  from  either  material  or  animal  causes, 
would  be  incomplete.  If,  for  instance,  I  were  to  say-  that  the 
carnal  man  "  in  the  bonds  of  iniquity,"  is  like  a  wretch,  who  is 
hindered  from  walking  in  the  paths  of  his  duty  and  safety  by 
some  incubus  that  crushes  his  strength,  I  should  use  a  false 
analogy  :  for  the  incubus  is  external :  carnality  is  internal :  an 
evil  state  qualifying  the  will  itself.  But  this  erroneous  parallel 
may  serve  us  so  far;  the  fortunate  subject  of  effectual  calling 
has  no  more  occasion  to  complain  of  violence  done  to  his  free- 
agency,  than  that  wretch  would,  when  a  deliverer  came  and  rolled 
the  abhorred  load  off  his  body,  restoring  his  limbs  to  the  blessed 
freedom  of  motion,  which  might  carry  him  away  from  the  death 
that  threatened  him.  You  must  learn  to  think  of  the  almighty 
grace  put  forth  in  effectual  calling,  as  reparative  only ;  not  vio- 
lative. Augustine  calls  it  a  Delectatio  victrix.  It  is  a  secret, 
omnipotent,  silent,  beneficent  work  of  God,  as  gentle,  yet 
powerful,  as  that  which  restored  the  vital  spark  to  the  corpse 
of  Lazarus.  Such  are  all  God's  beneficent  actions,  from  the 
launching  of  the  worlds  in  their  orbits,  to  the  germination  of 
the  seed  in  the  soil. 


LECTURE  L. 

FAITH. 


SYLLABUS. 

I.  How  many  kinds  of  faith  are  mentioned  in  the  Bible  ?     Show  that  temporary 
and  saving  faith  differ  in  nature. 

See,  on  whole,  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  14.    Shorter  Cat.,  Qu.  86.     Larger  Cat.  Qu. 

72.     Turrettin.  Loc.  xv,    Qu.  7,  Qu.   15,  ^   i-io.     Ridgley,    Qu.   72.     Dick, 

Lect.  68.     Knapp,  ^  122. 
2  Wliat  is  the  immediate  object  of  saving  faith? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xv.  Qu.  12,  §  7-1 1.     Dick,  as  above.      Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  i,  near 

the  end.     Knapp,  ^  123. 

3.  Is  faith  implicit,  or  intelligent  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  9,  10.     Knapp,  §  122.     Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  i. 

4.  What  are  the   elements  which  make  up  saving  Faith  ?     Is  it  a  duty  and  un- 
belief a  sin  ?     Does  faith  precede  regeneration  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  8.  Hill  as  above,  A.  Fuller,  "  Strictures  on  San- 
deman,"  Letters  2,  3,  7.  Alexander's  Relig.  Experience,  ch.  6.  Chalmer's  Inst, 
of  Theol.  Vol.  ii,  ch.  6.  Ridgley,  Qu.  72,  73.  Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch. 
23,  §  3.     Knapp,  §  122,  124. 

5.  Is  Christian  love  the  formal  principle  of  faith  ? 

Council  of  Trent,  Session  vi,  ch.  7.  Calvin,  Inst.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  2,  §  8  to  10. 
Turrettin,  Qu.  13. 

6.  Is   assurance  of  belief,  or  assurance  of  hope,  either,  or  both,  of  the  essence 
of  saving  faith  ? 

Council  of  Trent ;  Can.  de  Justif.,  12  to  16.  Calvin,  as  above,  ^  7  to  14. 
Dick,  as  above.  Turrettin,  Qu.  17.  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  18.  Ridgley,  Qu. 
72,  73.  Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  24,  g  ii,  Dorner's  Hist.  Prot.  Theol.  Vol. 
i,  §  i,  ch.  4  §  a.  Louis  Le  Blanc,  Sieur  de  BeauUeu,  Treatise  on  Faith,  in 
reply  to  Bosquet's  Variations  of  Popery. 

7.  Why  is  this  faith  suitable  to  be  the  instrument  of  justification  ? 
Ridgley,  Qu.  73.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xvi,  Qu.  7,  §  19. 

>A  FTER  noting  those  cases,  as  i  Tim.  i  :  19,  where  Faith  is 

evidently  used  for  its  object,  we  may  say  that  the  Scrip- 

I.  Faith  of  Four    tures  mention  four  kinds — historical,  tempo- 

Kinds.    Temporary    rary,  saving  and  miraculous.     As   the    only 

Faith  not  of  the  Kind    difference    among   theologians    in    this    list 

01  bavmg.  ,      .1  °.  .     °i  , 

respects  the  question,  whether  temporary  and 

saving  faith  are  generically  different,  we  shall  only  enlarge  on 
this.  Arminians  regard  them  as  the  same,  in  all  except  their 
issue.  This  we  deny.  Because:  (a)  The  efficient  cause  of 
saving  faith  is  effectual  calling,  proceeding  from  God's  immuta- 
ble election.  Titus  i  :  i  ;  Acts  xiii  :  48  :  that  of  temporary 
faith  is  the  common  call,  (b)  The  subject  of  saving  faith  is  a 
"good  heart;  "  a  regenerate  soul:  that  of  temporary  faith  is  a 
stony  soul.  See  Matt,  xiii  :  5,  6,  with  8  ;  John  iii  :  36,  or  i  John 
v:  I,  with  Acts  viii  :  13  and  23.  (c)  The  firmness  and  sub- 
stance of  the  two  differ  essentially.  Matt,  xiii :  21  ;  i  Pet.  i :  23. 
(d)  Their  objects  are  different :  saving  faith  embracing  Christ 
as  He  is  offered  in  the  gospel,  a  Saviour  from  sin  to  holiness : 
and  temporary  faith  embracing  only  the  impunity  and  enjoy- 
ments of  the  Christian,  (e)  Their  results  are  different :  the  one 
600 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  60I 

bearing  all  the  fruits  of  sanctification,  comfort  and  persever 
ance ;  the  other  bearing  no  fruit  unto  perfection.  See  the  par 
able  of  the  sower  again. 

The  special  object  of  saving  faith  is  Christ  the  Redeemer, 
and  the  promises  of  grace  in  Him.     By  this, 

Ob'eSof  fSL^''^'^'''^  w^  ^°  "°^  ""'^^^  ^^^^^  ^^y  ^^^^  believer  will 
willfully  and  knowingly  reject  any  of  the 
other  propositions  of  God's  word.  For  the  same  habit  of  faith, 
or  disposition  of  holy  assent  and  obedience  to  God's  authority, 
which  causes  the  embracing  of  gospel  propositions,  will  cause 
the  embracing  of  all  others,  as  fast  as  their  evidence  becomes 
known.  But  we  mean  that,  in  justifying  faith,  Christ  and  His 
grace  is  the  object  immediately  before  the  believer's  mind ;  and 
that  if  he  have  a  saving  knowledge  of  this,  but  be  ignorant  of 
all  the  rest  of  the  gospel,  he  may  still  be  saved  by  believing 
this.  The  evidences  are,  that  the  gospel  is  so  often  spoken  of 
as  the  object  of  faith;  [but  this  is  about  Christ];  e.  g.  Mark 
xvi  :  15,  16  ;  Eph.  i  :  13;  Mark  i  :  15  ;  Rom.  i  :  16,  17  ;  e/  pas- 
sim. That  believing  on  Christ  is  so  often  mentioned  as  the 
sole  condition,  and  that,  to  men  who  must  probably  have  been 
ignorant  of  many  heads  of  divinity  ;  e.  g.,  Acts  xvi  :  31  ;  Jno. 
iii  :  18  ;  vi  :  40  ;  Rom.  x  :  9,  &c.  The  same  thing  may  be 
argued  from  the  experiences  of  Bible  saints,  who  represent 
themselves  as  fixing  their  eyes  specially  on  Christ,  i  Tim.  i  : 
15,  &c.,  and  from  the  two  sacraments  of  faith,  which  point 
immediately  to  Jesus  Christ.  Still,  this  special  faith  is,  in  its 
habitus,  a  principle  of  hearty  consent  to  all  God's  holy  truth,  as 
fast  as  it  is  apprehened  as  His.  Faith  embraces  Christ  substan- 
tially in  all  His  offices.  This  must  be  urged,  as  of  prime  prac- 
tical importance.  Dr.  Owen  has  in  one  place  very  incautiously 
said,  that  saving  faith  in  its  first  movement  embraces  Christ 
only  in  His  priestly,  or  propitiatory  work.  This  teaching  is  far 
too  common,  at  least  by  implication,  in  our  pulpits.  Its  result 
is  "temporary"  faith,  which  embraces  Christ  for  impunity  only, 
instead  of  deliverance  from  sin.  Our  Catechism  defines  faith, 
as  embracing  Christ  "  as  He  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel." 
Our  Confession  (chap,  xiv,  §  2),  says :  "  the  principle  acts  of 
saving  faith  are  accepting,  receiving,  and  resting  upon  Christ 
alone  for  justification,  sanctification  and  eternal  life."  How 
Christ  is  offered  to  us  in  the  gospel,  may  be  seen  in  Matt,  i  :  21  ; 
I  Cor.  i  :  30  ;  Eph.  v  :  25-27  ;  Titus,  ii  :  14.  The  tendency  of 
human  selfishness  is  ever  to  degrade  Christ's  sacrifice  into  a 
mere  expedient  for  bestowing  impunity.  The  pastor  can  never 
be  too  explicit  in  teaching  that  this  is  a  travesty  of  the  gospel ; 
and  that  no  one  rises  above  the  faith  of  the  stony-ground- 
hearer,  until  he  desires  and  embraces  Christ  as  a  deliverer  from 
depravity  and  sin,  as  well  as  hell. 

The  papists  represent  faith  as  an  implicit  exercise  of  the 


602  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

^  .,    ,,  mind,  in  which  the  behever  accepts  the  doc- 

3.    Faith    Must    be     ,    •  ,    ,  r  -i-  ,  , 

Explicit.  trines,  not  because   01  his  own  clear  under- 

standing of  their  evidence,  but  because  of 
the  pious  and  submissive  temper  of  mind  towards  the  Church  ; 
her  authority  being,  to  Romanists,  the  ground  of  faith.  Faith 
accordingly  may  be  compatible  with  ignorance,  both  of  the 
other  evidence,  (besides  the  Church's  assertion),  and  of  the 
very  propositions  themselves  ;  so  that  a  man  may  embrace  with 
his  faith,  doctrines,  when  he  not  only  does  not  see  evidence 
for  them,  but  does  not  know  what  they  are  !  Indeed,  says 
Aquinas :  Since  dyd-r^  is  the  formative  principle  of  faith,  the 
less  a  man's  acceptance  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  proceeds 
from  intelligence,  and  the  more  from  the  impulse  of  right  dis- 
positions, the  more  praiseworthy  it  is.  This  description  of 
faith  is  evidently  the  only  one  consistent  with  a  denial  of  pri- 
vate judgment. 

Protestants,  on  the  other  hand,  hold  that  faith  must  be 

■o     c    r-n         ■       explicit    and    intelligent ;    or   it    cannot    be 

Proofs  of  Romanists  r  ■,■1'      .  1     .   ,  1  .^-  1  ,. 

Invalid.  proper  taith — that  the  propositions  embraced 

must  be  known ;  and  the  evidence  therefor 
comprehended  intelligently.  They  grant  to  Aquinas,  that  faith 
derives  its  moral  quality  from  the  holiness  of  principles  and  vol- 
untary moral  dispositions  actuating  the  exercise;  but  his  con- 
clusion in  favour  of  an  unintelligent  faith  is  absurd,  because  vol- 
untary moral  dispositions  can  only  act  legitimately,  through  an 
intelligent  knowledge  of  their  objects.  The  right  intelligence 
is  in  order  to  the'  right  feeling.  Protestants-,  again  distinguish 
between  a  comprehension  of  the  evidence,  and  a  full  compre- 
hension of  the  proposition.  The  former  is  the  rational  ground 
of  beUef,  not  the  latter.  The  affirmations  of  many  propo- 
sitions, not  only  in  theology,  but  in  other  sciences,  afe  ration- 
ally believed,  because  their  evidences  are  intelligently  seen, 
when  the  predications  themselves  are  not  fully  or  even  at  all 
comprehended.  This  distinction  answers  at  once  all  the  objec- 
tions made  by  Papists  to  an  explicit  faith,  from  the  case  of  th^ 
Patriarch,  who  believed  a  gospel  promise  only  vaguely  stated 
and  of  us,  who  believe  mysteries  we  cannot  explain.  Nor  is  i\ 
of  any  force  to  say,  many  Protestants  could  not  give  an  intelli- 
gent view  of  any  one  sufficient  argument  for  a  given  point  it 
their  creed.  We  grant  that  many  professed  Protestants  hav(. 
only  a  spurious  faith.  Again:  an  humble  mind  cannot  always, 
state  in  language  intelligently,  what  he  understands  intelli- 
gently. 

For  an  explicit  faith,  thus  defined,  we  argue  :    i.  That  i'c  is 

.rr      ,.       .  the  only  sort  possible,  according  to  the  Jaws 

Affirmative  Argu-        r,i  -ia  ii- 

ments.  oi  the  mind.     A  man  cannot  believe,  except 

by  seeing  evidence.  As  well  talk  of  percep- 
tion of  objects  of  sight  occurring  in  one,  without  using  one'b  own 
eyes.     But,  say  Papists :  the  Catholic's  implicit  faith  is  not  thus 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  605 

totally  blind,  but  rests  on  the  testimony  of  the  Church.  His 
mind,  influenced  by  dyd-r^,  has  intelligently  embraced  this  as 
plenary  and  infallible.  Now,  may  not  a  man  have  a  conviction 
in  such  case,  implicit  even  of  unknown  propositions  ?  e.  g.,  you 
Protestants  have  your  authoritative  rule  of  faith,  your  Scrip- 
ture. Once  adopt  this,  and  you  accept  its  unknown  contents 
as  true ;  of  which  there  are  to  you  some,  until  your  study  of 
Scripture-exegesis  is  exhaustive.  Ans.  Very  true.  But  the 
Romanist  has  no  right  to  resort  to  this  case  as  a  parallel ; 
because  he  does  not  permit  private  judgment  to  exercise  itself 
in  rationally  weighing  the  proofs  of  the  Church's  authority,  any 
more  than  of  the  Bible's  authority.  He  cannot;  because  then, 
the  individual  must  exercise  his  private  judgment  upon  the 
Scripture ;  the  argument  for  the  Church's  authority  being 
dependent  thereon,  in  essential  branches.  2.  The  Bible  agrees 
to  this,  by  directing  us  to  read  and  understand  in  order  to 
believe;  to  search  the  Scriptures.  See  Jno.  v  :  39;  Rom.  x  : 
17  ;  Ps.  cxix  :  34 ;  Prov.  xvi  :  22  ;  Acts  xxviii  :  27 ;  Jno.  xvii  :  3  ; 
I  Cor.  xi  :  29 ;  Jno.  vi  :  45.  3.  We  are  commanded  to  be  "  able 
to  give  to  every  man  that  asketh  of  us,  a  reason  of  the  hope 
that  is  in  us."  i  Pet.  iii  :  15.  And  faith  is  everywhere  spoken 
of  as  an  intelligent  exercise ;  while  religious  ignorance  is 
rebuked  as  sin. 

But  we  now  approach  an  inquiry  concerning  faith,  on  which 

our  own  divines  are  more  divided.  Is  faith 
or'complex?       ""^  ^    ^  perfectly  simple  exercise  of  the  soul,  by  its 

single  faculty  of  intellect ;  or  is  it  a  complex 
act  of  both  intellect  and  active  moral  powers,  when  stripped  of 
all  antecedent  or  consequent  elements,  which  do  not  properly 
belong  to  it  ?  The  older  divines,  with  the  confession,  evidently 
make  it  a  complex  act  of  soul,  consisting  of  an  intellectual, 
and  a  voluntary  element.  Turrettin,  indeed,  discriminates 
seven  elements  in  the  direct  and  reflex  actings  of  faith:  i. 
Cognition  ;  2.  Intellectual  assent ;  3.  Trust ;  4.  Fleeing  for  ref- 
uge ;  5.  Embracing;  and  (reflex)  6.  Self-consciousness  of  true 
actings  of  faith,  with  7.  Consolation  and  assurance  of  hope. 
The  two  latter  should  rather  be  named  the  ulterior  conse- 
quences of  saving  faith,  than  a  substantive  part  thereof.  The 
first  is  rather  a  previous  condition  of  faith,  and  the  third,  fourth 
and  fifth  seem  to  me  either  identical,  or,  at  most,  phases  of  the 
different  actings  of  the  will  toward  gospel  truth.  Of  the  old, 
established  definition,  I  have  seen  no  sounder  exponent  than  A. 
Fuller.  Now,  Drs.  A.  Alexander  and  Chalmers,  among  others, 
teach  that  saving  faith  is  nothing  but  a  simple  belief  of  propo- 
sitions ;  and  they  seem  to  regard  it  as  necessary  to  suppose  the 
act  as  capable  of  being  analysed  into  a  perfectly  simple  one, 
because  it  is  everywhere  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  a  single 
one.  Dr.  Alexander  also  argues,  with  great  acuteness  and 
beauty  of  analysis,  that   since   the   soul   is    an    absolute    unit 


■604  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

always,  and  its  faculties  are  not  departments  of  it,  but  only  dif- 
ferent modes  it  has  of  acting,  the  enlightening  of  the  mind  in 
regeneration  and  the  moral  renovation  of  will,  must  be  one  sim- 
ple act  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  one  effect,  not  two.  And 
hence,  there  is  no  ground  to  suppose  that  faith,  which  is  the 
first  characteristic  acting  of  the  new  born,  and  result  of  new 
birth,  is  complex.  Moreover,  he  argues,  since  the  will  always 
follows  the  latest  dictate  of  the  understanding,  it  is  unneces- 
sary to  attribute  to  faith  any  other  character  than  a  conviction 
of  truth  in  the  intellect,  to  explain  its  practical  effects  in  turn- 
ing the  soul  from  sin  to  Christ. 

Now,  in  examining  this  subject,  let  us  remember  that  the   re- 
sort must  be  to  the  Bible  alone,  to  learn  what 
Jl'^,  ,^'c'^°?  ^°  ^^    it  means  by  Tzcarc:.     And  this  Bible  was  not 

settled  by  bcnpture.  .  -^  ... 

written  for  metaphysicians,  but  for  the  popu- 
lar mind  ;  and  its  statements  about  exercises  of  the  soul  are  not 
intended  to  be  analytical,  but  practical.  This  being  admitted, 
and  Dr.  Alexander's  definition  of  the  soul  and  its  faculties  be- 
ing adopted  as  evidently  the  true  one,  it  appears  to  me  that,  the 
fact  the  Scriptures  every  where  enjoin  faith  as  a  single  act  of 
the  soul  (by  the  doing  of  which  one  exercise,  without  any  other, 
the  soul  is  brought  into  Christ),  does  not  at  all  prove  it  may  not 
be  a  complex  act,  performed  by  the  soul  through  two  of  its 
modes  of  action.  Dr.  Chalmers,  Dr.  Alexander,  and  every 
other  divine  often  speak  of  acts  as  single,  which  they  would 
yet  analyse  into  two  elements,  and  those  not  of  the  same  fac- 
ulties; e.  g.,  the  exercise  of  repentance  or  moral  approval 
by.  the  soul,  consisting  (in  some  order)  of  a  judgment  and  an 
emotion. 

In  explaining  the  defect  of  the  other  argument  of  Dr.  Alex- 
The  Heart   Guides    ^f^der,  I  would  remind  the  student  of  the  dis- 
the  Head  in  Moral    tinctions  made  in  defending  the  doctrine  of 
^^°'^^-  the  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  regen- 

eration. True,  the  regenerating  touch  which  enlightens  the  un- 
derstanding and  renews  the  will,  is  one,  and  not  two,  separate, 
or  successive  exertions  of  power.  True,  the  will  does  follow 
the  last  dictate  of  the  understanding,  on  all  subjects.  But  let 
us  go  one  step  farther  back  :  How  comes  the  understanding  by 
its  notions,  in  those  cases  where  the  subjects  thereof  are  the  ob- 
jects of  its  natural  active  propensities?  As  we  showed,  in  all 
these  cases,  the  notion  or  opinion  of  the  understanding  is  but 
the  echo  and  the  result  of  the  taste  or  preference  of  the  propen- 
sity. Therefore,  the  change  of  opinion  can  only  be  brought 
about  by  changing  the  taste  or  preference.  Now,  inasmuch  as 
all  the  leading  gospel  truths  are  objects  of  native  and  immedi- 
ate moral  propensity,  the  renovation  of  those  propensities 
procures  the  enlightening  of  the  understanding,  rather  than 
the  contrary.  So  in  faith,  the  distinctive  exercise  of  the 
renewed  soul  (renewed  as  a  soul,  and  not  only  as  one  faculty 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  605. 

thereof,)  it  is  more  correct  to  regard  the  element  of  active  moral 
propensity  (now  towards  Christ  and  away  from  sin)  as  source, 
and  the  new  state  of  opinion  concerning  gospel  truth,  as  result. 
But  now,  the  understanding  apprehends  these  objects  of  natural 
moral  propensity,  according  to  truth,  because  of  the  correct 
actings  of  the  propensity  towards  them;  and  according  to 
the  soul's  customary  law,  this  apprehension  according  to 
truth,  is  followed  by  right  volitions :  the  first  of  which, 
the  embracing  of  Christ  for  salvation,  is  in  the  Scriptural, 
practical  account  of  faith,  included  as  a  part  of  the  com- 
plete act.  If  that  which  the  Bible  represents  as  a  sin- 
gle, may  yet  be  a  complex  act  of  the  soul,  exerting  itself  in  two- 
capacities  (which  I  have  proved),  then  it  is  no  argument  to  say 
the  embracing  of  Christ  by  the  will  is  no  part  of  saving  faith 
proper,  but  only  a  consequence  ;  because  it  is  a  natural  conse- 
quence of  the  law  that  the  will  follows  the  last  dictate  of  the 
mind.  Grant  it.  Yet  why  may  not  that  very  act  of  will,  thus- 
produced,  be  the  very  thing  the  Bible  means  by  saving  faith  ? 
(According  to  the  Confession.)  Then,  to  settle  this,  let  us  resort 
to  the  Bible  itself.  Be  it  remembered  that,  having  distinguished 
the  two  elements  of  belief  and  embracing,  it  is  simply  a  ques- 
tion of  fact,  whether  the  Scriptures  mean  to  include  the  latter  as- 
a  part  of  that  exercise,  by  which  the  sinner  is  justified  ;  or  a  re- 
sult of  it.     Then, 

1.  The  very  object  proposed  to  faith  implies  that  it  must  be 
The  Object  of  Faith    ^^^  ^^^  ^s  well'as  a  notion  :  for  that  object  is^ 

not  an  Opinion,  but  a    not  merely  truth  but  good,  both  natural  and 
^°°^-  moral  good.     We  often  determine  the  char- 

acter of  the  soul's  actings  by  that  of  their  object.  Now,  the 
exercise  provoked  or  occasioned  by  an  object  of  appetency, 
must  be  active.  Here,  we  may  remark,  there  is  strong  evidence 
for  our  view  in  this,  that  the  Scriptures  often  speak  of  faith  as~ 
trust.  See  Ps.  ii  :  12;  xvii :  y  \  et  passim  ;  Matt,  xii :  21;  Eph. 
i  :  12,  &c.  Chalmers  most  strangely  remarks,  that  still  faith 
does  not  seem  to  be  anything  more  than  simple  belief;  because 
when  we  analyse  trust  in  a  promise,  we  find  it  to  consist  of  a 
belief  in  a  proposition  accompanied  by  appetency  for  the  good- 
propounded ;  and  the  belief  is  but  belief.  I  reply  yes  ;  but  the 
trust  is  not  mere  belief  only.  Our  argument  is  in  the  fact  that 
the  Scriptures  say  faith  is  trust,  and  trust  is  faith.  Chalmers'  is 
a  strangely  bald  sophism. 

2.  The  Scriptures  describe  faith  by  almost  every  imagina- 

able  active  figure.  It  is  a  "  looking,"  (Is.  xlv : 
in  Sci^ur''  ^''"    22,)  a  "receiving,"  (Jno.  i  :  12,  13,)  an  "  eat- 

ing "  of  Him,  (Jno.  vi  :  54,)  a  "  coming," 
(Jno.  V  :  40,)  an  "  embracing,"  (Heb.  xi  :  13,)  a  "fleeing  unto, 
and  laying  hold  of,"  (Heb.  vi  :  18,)  &c.  Here  it  may  be  added, 
that  every  one  of  the  illustrations  of  faith  in  Heb.  xi  (whose- 
first  verse  some  quote  as  against  me)  come  up  to  the  Apostle's^ 


6o6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

description  in  the  13th  verse,  containing  an  active  element  of 
trust  and  choice,  as  well  as  the  mental  one  of  belief. 

3.  The  manner  in  which  faith  and  repentance  are  coupled 
together  in  Scripture  plainly  shows  that,  as  faith  is  implicitly 
present  in  repentance,  so  repentance  is  implicitly  in  faith.  But 
if  so,  this  gives  to  faith  an  active  character.  Mark  1:15;  Matt. 
xxi  :  32  ;  2  Tim.  ii :  25. 

4.  The  Scriptures  represent  faith,  not  only  as   a   privilege, 

but  a  duty,  and  unbelief  as  a  sin.      i  Jno.  iii : 
Unbelief  a  Sm.  ^3  ;  Jno.  xvi  :  9.      Now,  it  seems   clear  that 

nothing  is  a  sin,  in  which  there  is  no  voluntary  element.  The 
mere  notion  of  the  understanding  arises  upon  the  sight  of  evi- 
dence involuntary ;  and  there  is  no  moral  desert  or  ill-desert 
about  it,  any  more  than  in  being  hurt  when  hit.  And  the  reason 
why  we  are  responsible  for  our  belief  on  moral  subjects  is,  that 
there  is  always  an  active,  or  voluntary  element,  about  such  be- 
lief. The  nature  thereof  is  explained  by  what  has  been  said 
above  on  the  order  of  causation  between  our  disposition  or  pro- 
pensities, and  our  opinions  concerning  their  objects. 

5.  If  we  make  faith  nothing  but  simple  belief,  we  are  una- 

ble to  give  a  satisfactory  account  of  the  dif- 
H^toiical  Faith  Dif-    fgj-gj^^e  between  historical  and   saving  faith. 

Chalmers,  in  the  summary  of  his  6th  chapter, 
as  good  as  acknowledges  this.  But  surely  that  must  be  a  de- 
fective theory,  which  makes  it  impossible  to  see  a  difference, 
where  yet,  it  admits,  a  substantial  difference  exists  !  Some 
would  get  out  of  the  difficulty  by  denying  that,  in  strictness  of 
speech,  there  is  any  historical  faith  where  there  is  not  saving 
faith — i.  e.,  by  denying  that  such  persons  truly  believe,  even 
with  the  understanding.  Many  candid  sinners  will  declare  that 
their  consciousness  contradicts  this.  Says  Dr.  Alexander,  the 
historical  faith  does  not  differ  in  that  it  believes  different  propo- 
sitions ;  but  in  that  it  believes  them  with  a  different  and  inferior 
grasp  of  conviction,  I  would  ask,  first,  wiiether  this  statem.ent 
does  not  give  countenance  to  that  radical  Arminian  error,  which 
makes  saving  differ  from  temporary  faith,  only  in  degree,  and 
not  in  kind  ?  And  I  would  remark,  next :  This  is  a  singular  de- 
sertion of  a  part  of  the  strength  of  his  own  position,  (although 
we  believe  that  position  includes  only  a  part  of  the  truth.) 

It  is  certainly  true  that  historical  faith  does  not  believe  all 

the  propositions   embraced   by  saving  faith, 
It  does  not  Accept    ^^j.  ^.j^g  most  important  of  them.     Cat.  que. 

86.  It  believes,  in  a  sense,  that  Christ  is  a 
Saviour,  but  does  it  believe  that  all  its  best  works  are  sins ;  that 
it  is  a  helpless  captive  to  ungodliness  ;  that  sin  is,  at  this  time,  a 
thing  utterly  undesirable  in  itself  for  that  person  ;  and  that  it  is, 
at  this  moment,  a  thing  altogether  to  be  preferred,  to  be  sub- 
dued unto  holiness  and  obedience  in  Jesus  Christ?  No,  indeed  ; 
the  true  creed  of  historical  faith  is  :  that   "  I  am  a  great  sinner, 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  607 

but  not  utter;  that  I  shall  initiate  a  rebellion  against  ungodliness 
successfully  some  day,  when  the  '  convenient  season  '  comes,  and 
I  o-et  my  own  consent.  That  the  Christian's  impunity  and  inher- 
itance win  be  a  capital  thing,  when  I  dome  to  die  ;  but  that  at 
present,  some  form  of  sin  and  worldliness  is  the  sweeter,  and 
the  Christian's  peculiar  sanctity  the  more  repulsive,  thing  for 
me."  Now,  the  only  way  to  revolutionize  these  opinions,  is  to 
revolutionize  the  active,  spiritual  tastes,  of  whose  verdicts  they 
are  the  echo — to  produce,  in  a  word,  spiritual  tastes  equally  active 
in  the  opposite  direction.  We  have  thus  shown  that  historical 
faith  does  not  embrace  the  same  propositions  as  saving  ;  and 
that  the  difference  is  not  merely  one  of  stronger  mental  convic- 
tion. But  we  have  shown  that  the  difference  is  one  of  con- 
trasted moral  activities,  dictating  opposite  opinions  as  to  present 
spiritual  good ;  and  thus  procuring  action  of  the  will  to  em- 
brace that  good  in  Christ.  See  also,  2  Thess.  ii  :  10 ;  Rom.  x  : 
•9  and  10. 

It  is  very  clear,,  that  if  this  account  of  faith  is  correct,  it 

can    only   be    an    exercise  of    a   regenerate 

Faith  the  Fruit  of   ^     ^^      ^j^^    ^^^.^^   affections   which  dictate 

Regeneration.  i  1  1        -i 

the  opinions  as  to  moral  good  and  evil,  ac- 
cording to  truth,  and  thus  procure  action,  are  spiritual  affections. 
To  this  agree  the  Scriptures,  See  Rom.  viii :  7  ;  i  Cor.  ii :  14 ; 
Eph.  i  :  19,  20  ;  ii  :  8  ;  Ezek.  xxxvi  :  26,  27  ;  Phil,  i  :  29  ;  Gal. 
V  :  22  ;  Tit.  i  :  i  ;  Heb.  xii  :  2.  To  this  representation  there 
are  three  objections  urged  : 

1.  "That   of  the    Sandemanian,  that   by    giving  faith  an 

active  and  holy  character,  we  virtually  bring 
Objections.  ^^^^  justification  by  human  merit." 

2.  ''  That  by  supposing  regeneration  (the  very  germ  of 
redemption)  bestowed  on  the  sinner  before  justification,  we 
make  God  reconciled  to  him  before  He  is  reconciled." 

3.  "  That  we  tell  the  sinner  to  go  to  Christ  by  faith  in 
order  to  be  made  holy,  while  yet  he  must  be  made  holy  in 
•order  to  go." 

The  answer  to  the    1st,  is  that  we  define  faith  as  a  holy 
exercise  of  the  soul ;  but  we  do  not  attribute 
Answers.  j^^  instrumentality  to  justify,  to  its  holiness, 

but  to  the  fact  that  it  embraces  Christ's  justifying  righteous- 
ness. It  is  neither  strange  nor  unreasonable,  that  a  thing 
should  have  two  or  more  attributes,  and  yet  be  adapted  by  one 
special  attribute  among  them,  to  a  given  instrumentality.  The 
diamond  is  transparent,  but  it  is  its  hardness  which  fits  it  for 
cutting  glass.  True  faith  is  obediential :  it  involves  the  will :  it 
has  moral  quality  :  but  its  receptive  nature  is  what  fits  it  to  be 
the  organ  of  our  justification.  Hence  it  does  not  follow  that 
we  introduce  justification  by  our  own  moral  merit. 

To  the  2d,  I  answer,  it  owes  its  whole  plausibility  to  assum- 
ing that  we  make  a  difference  in  the  order  of   time  between 


6o8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

regeneration  and  justification  by  faith.  But  we  do  not.  In 
this  sense,  the  sinner  is  justified  when  he  is  regenerated,  and 
regenerated  when  justified.  Again,  God  has  purposes  of 
mercy  towards  His  elect  considered  as  unregenerate.  For 
were  they  not  elected  as  such  ?  In  the  Covenant  of  Redemp- 
tion, Christ's  vicarious  engagement  for  them  did  not  persuade 
the  Father  to  be  merciful  to  them.  On  the  contrary,  it  only 
enabled  His  original  mercy,  from  which  the  gift  of  Christ  Him- 
self proceeded,  to  go  forth  compatibly  with  His  holiness. 
Hence,  at  the  application  of  Redemption,  God  justifies  in  the 
righteousness  of  Another,  in  order  that  He  may  consistently 
bless,  with  regeneration  and  all  other  graces  ;  and  He  regene- 
rates, in  order  that  the  sinner  may  be  enabled  to  embrace  that 
righteousness.  In  time  they  are  simultaneous ;  in  source,  both 
are  gracious ;  but  in  the  order  of  production,  the  sinner  is 
enabled  to  believe  by  being  regenerated,  not  vice  versa. 

To  the  3d,  I  reply,  that  this  is  but  to  re-affirm  the  sinner's 
inability  ;  which  is  reaj,  and  not  God's  fault, 
^Smner  Dependent  on  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^  ^^.^^  .  j^  ^^^  essential  revo- 
lution from  death  to  life,  and  curse  to  bless- 
ing, the  sinner  is  dependent  on  Sovereign  grace  ;  (it  is  the  viru- 
lence of  sin  that  make  him  so ;)  and  there  is  no  use  in  trying  to 
blink  the  fact.  It  is  every  way  best  for  the  sinner  to  find  it 
out :  for  thus  the  thoroughness  of  legal  conviction  is  completed, 
and  self-dependence  is  slain.  Let  not  the  guide  of  souls  try  to 
palliate  the  inexorable  fact,  by  telling  him  that  he  cannot 
regenerate  himself  and  so  adapt  himself  to  believe  ;  but  that 
he  can  use  means,  &c.,  &c.  For  if  the  awakened  sinner  is  per- 
spicacious, he  will  answer,  (logically),  "  Yes  ;  and  all  my  using 
means  and  instrumentalities,  you  tell  me,  will  be  adding  sin  to 
sin ;  for  I  shall  use  them  with  wholly  carnal  motives."  If  not 
perspicacious,  he  will  thrust  these  means  between  himself  and 
Christ ;  and  be  in  imminent  risk  of  damnation  by  endeavouring 
to  make  a  Saviour  of  them.  No,  let  the  pastor  only  reply  to 
the  anxious  soul  in  the  words  of  Paul,  (Acts  xvi  :  31)  "  Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,"  while  he 
also  refuses  to  retract  the  truth,  that  "  no  man  cometh  unto 
Christ,  except  the  Father  draw  him."  The  healing  of  the 
withered  arm  is  here  a  parallel.  Matt,  xii  :  10- 1 3.  Had  that 
afflicted  man  possessed  the  spirit  of  this  cavil,  he  would  have 
objected  to  the  command,  "  Stretch  forth  thy  hand ;"  that  it 
must  first  be  miraculously  healed.  But  he  had,  instead,  the 
spirit  of  faith  :  and  He  who  gave  the  command,  gave  also  the 
strength  to  obey.  In  the  act  of  obeying  he  was  miraculously 
enabled. 

If  the  sinner  recalcitrate  against  the  gospel  paradox,  the 
triumphant  answer  will  be :  that  the  root  of  the  reason  why  he 
cannot  embrace  Christ  in  his  own  strength  is,  that  his  own  spon- 
taneous preference  is  for  self-will  and  ungodliness.     So  that  if 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  609 

he  fails  in  coming  to  Christ,  why  does  he  murmur?  He  has 
followed  precisely  his  own  secret  preference,  in  staying  away. 
If  the  minister  feels  responsible  and  anxious  for  the  successful 
issue  of  the  case  entrusted  thus  to  his  tuition,  let  him  remem- 
ber :  (a)  That  after  all,  it  is  sovereign  gr.ace  that  must  regene- 
rate, and  not  the  separate  efficiency  of  any  views  of  truth, 
however  correct ;  and  that  he  is  not  responsible  to  God  for 
persuading  the  sinner  to  Christ,  which  is  God's  own  work ;  and 
(b)  That  God  does  in  fact  make  the  "  sinner's  extremity  His 
own  opportunity;"  and  where  we  see  Him  thus  slaying  carnal 
self  by  this  thorough  law-work,  it  is  because  He  intend^  thereby 
to  prepare  the  way  for  His  sovereign  regenerating  work.  Let 
not  the  minister,  therefore,  become  disbelLving,  and  resort  to 
foolish,  carnal  expedients  ;  let  him  simply  repeat  the  gospel 
condition  ;  and  then  "  stand  still  and  see  the  salvation  of  God." 

This  difficulty  is  presented  in  its  most  interesting  form,  by 
the  question,  whether  an  anxious  sinner  conscious  of  an  unre- 
newed state,  may  begin  to  pray  with  an  expectation  of  answer. 
Some  professed  Calvinists  have  been  so  embarrassed,  as  to  give 
a  very  unscriptural  answer.  They  have  argued  that  "  without 
faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God;"  and  as  faith  is  a  result  of 
regeneration,  it  is  the  unrenewed  sinner's  duty  to  abstain  from 
praying,  until  conscious  of  the  saving  change.  But  Scripture 
commands  sinners  to  pray.  See  Acts  viii  :  22  ;  Rom.  x  :  13. 
Man's  logic  is  vain,  against  God's  express  word.  Again :  it  is 
wrong  to  command  any  one  to  abstain  from  prayer  (or  any 
other  duty)  because  he  is  in  a  state  of  unbelief,  because  it  is 
wrong  for  him  to  be  in  that  state.  It  is  preposterous  reasoning, 
which  makes  a  man's  own  sin  an  exemption  for  him.  Do  we 
then,  in  commanding  the  unbeliever  to  begin  praying,  tell  him 
to  offer  an  unbelieving  prayer  ?  By  no  means.  We  intend  that 
he  shall  so  begin,  that  by  God's  grace  that  prayer,  begun  in  the 
impotency  of  nature,  shall  instantly  transform  itself  into  the 
first  breathing  of  a  living  faith.  We  say  to  him  ;  Begin  pray- 
ing ;  "and  be  no  more  faithless,  but  believing."  It  is  most 
instructive  to  notice  how  Christ  Himself  encourages  the  anxious 
sinner  to  pretermit  the  obstacle  of  this  seeming  paradox.  The 
parables  by  which  He  inculcates  prayer  are  evidently  constructed, 
with  a  view  to  encourage  the  awakened  soul  to  waive  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  is  renewed  or  not.  In  Matt,  vii  :  1 1,  the  tender- 
ness of  parents  for  their  hungry  children  is  the  example  by 
which  He  emboldens  us.  But  in  applying  it.  He  actuall\'  breaks 
the  symmetry  of  His  own  comparison,  in  order  to  widen  the 
promise  for  the  encouragement  of  sinners.  We  at  first  expect 
Him  to  conclude  thus  :  "  If  ye  then,  though  evil,  know  how  to 
give  good  things  to  yoiir  children  :  how  much  more  shall  your 
Father  in  heaven  give  His  Holy  Spirit  to  His  children."  But 
no:  He  concludes:  "to  them  that  ask  Him;"  thus  graciously 
authorizing  us  to  waive  the  question   whether  we  have  become 

39' 


6lO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

His  children.  So,  in  Luke  xviii  :  14,  the  parable  of  the  publi- 
can shows  us  a  man  who  ventured  to  pray  in  the  profound  and 
humble  conviction  of  his  unrenewed  state  ;  and  he  obtained 
justification,  while  the  confident  profebsor  of  godliness  was 
rejected.  These  instructions  authorize  the  pastor  to  invite 
every  sinner  to  the  mercy-seat,  provided  only  he  is  hearty  in 
his  petition ;  and  to  direct  him  to  the  free  mercy  which  comes  "  to 
seek  and  save  that  which  is  lost."  Yet  it  is  certainly  true,  that 
the  prayer  of  abiding  unbelief  will  not  be  accepted.  But 
Prayer  is  God's  own  appointed  means  for  giving  expression  to 
the  implanted  faith,  and  thus  passing  out  of  the  unbelieving 
into  the  believing  state. 

Rome  teaches  that  historical  faith  is  the  substance  of  sav- 
ing ;  [fides  informis ;)  which  becomes  true 
DiftinSon  ^°''"'"'*'''  faith  by  receiving  its  form,  love.  (Thus  fides 
fomiata.)  Her  doctrine  of  Justification  is 
accordant,  viz  :  a  change  of  moral,  as  well  as  legal  state,  con- 
sisting not  only  in  pardon  and  acceptance  of  person,  but  in  the 
inworking  of  holy  love  in  the  character.  Now,  in  this  error,  as 
in  most  mischievous  ones,  we  find  a  certain  perverted  element 
of  truth,  (without  which  errors  would  not  usually  have  life 
enough  to  be  current.)  For  faith,  as  an  act  of  the  soul,  has 
moral  character ;  and  that  character,  holy.  But  the  sophism 
of  Rome  is  two-fold  :  (a.)  Her  fides  informis,  or  historical 
faith,  is  not  generically  the  same  act  of  the  soul  at  all  as  saving 
faith;  being  an  embracing  of  different  propositions,  or  at  least 
of  far  different  apprehensions  of  the  gospel  propositions,  being 
the  acts  of  different  faculties  of  the  soul ;  (historical  faith,  char- 
acteristically of  the  head  ;  saving  faith,  essentially  of  the  heart. 
Rom.  X  :  10;)  and  being  prompted  by  different  motives,  so  far 
as  the  former  has  motive.  For  the  former  is  prompted  by  self- 
love,  the  latter  by  love  of  holiness  and  hatred  of  sin.  (b.) 
Faith  does  not  justify  in  virtue  of  its  rightness,  but  in  virtue  of 
its  receptivity.  Whatever  right  moral  quality  it  has,  has  no 
relevancy  whatever  to  be,  of  itself,  a  justifying  righteousness; 
and  is  excluded  from  the  justifying  instrumentality  of  faith  ; 
Rom.  iv  :  4,  5  ;  xi :  6.  But  faith  justifies  by  its  instrumentality 
of  laying  hold  of  Christ's  righteousness,  in  which  aspect  it  does 
'not  contribute,  but  receives,  the  moral  merit.  (c.)  Love  can- 
not be  the  "  Form  of  faith,"  because  they  are  co-ordinate  graces. 
See  I  Cor.  xiii  :  13.  Rome  virtually  concedes  this  fatal  point, 
by  pleading  that  love  may  be  metaphorically  the  form  of  faith. 
To  the  modern  mind  a  conclusive  general  objection  remains : 
this  Peripatetic  mode  of  conception  and  definition,  by  matter 
and  form,  is  wholly  irrelevant  to  a  spiritual  exercise  or  function  : 
it  is  only  accurate  when  applied  to  concrete  objects. 

The  solution  of  Rome's  fiivourite  proof-texts  is  easy ;  e.  g., 
in  I  Cor.  xiii  :  2,  the  faith  is  that  of  miracles.  In  Gal.  v  :  6, 
faith  is  the  instrument  energizing  love,  and  not  vice  versa.      In 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6ll 

Jas.  ii  :  26,  works  (loving  ones  of  course),  are  not  the  causes, 
but  after-signs  of  faith's  vitaHty,  as  breath  is  of  the 
body's.  I  Cor.  vi  :  1 1  ;  Titus  iii  :  5  ;  Eph.  i  :  13  ;  Luk.  xv  :  22. 
&c.,  refer  to  the  sanctification  following  upon  justification. 

By  assurance  of  faith,  we  mean  the  certain  and  undoubting 

conviction  that  Christ  is  all   He    professes  to 

6.   Asurance    Dis-    ^     ^^^  ^.j^  ^^  ^jj  ^^  promises.     It  is  of  the 

tinguished.  '  ^  .  ^  ^  „ 

essence  01  savmg  laith,  as  all  agree.  bee 
Heb.  X  :  22 ;  xi  :  6 ;  Jas.  i  :  6,  y;  i  Tim.  ii  :  8 ;  Jer.  xxix  :  13. 
And  it  is  evident  that  nothing  less  than  full  conviction  of  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  gospel  would  give  ground  to  that  entire 
trust,  or  envoke  the  hearty  pursuit  of  Christ,  which  are  requi- 
site for  salvation.  The  assurance  of  grace  and  salvation  is  the 
assured  conviction  (with  the  peace  and  joy  proceeding  there- 
from) that  the  individual  believer  has  had  his  sins  pardoned, 
and  his  soul  saved.  Rome  stoutly  denies  that  this  is  a  part  of 
faith,  or  a  legitimate  reflex  act,  or  consequence  thereof,  (except 
in  the  case  of  revealed  assurance.)  Her  motive  is,  to  retain 
anxious  souls  under  the  clutch  of  her  priest-craft  and  tyranny. 
The  Reformers  generally  seem  to  have  been  driven  by  their 
hatred  of  this  odious  doctrine,  to  the  other  extreme,  and  make 
assurance  of  hope  of  the  essence  of  faith.  Thus,  Calvin  says, 
in  substance  :  ■"  My  faith  is  a  divine  and  spiritual  belief  that 
God  has  pardoned  and  accepted  me."  The  sober  view  of  the 
moderns  (see  Conf.,  ch.  18)  is,  that  this  assurance  is  the  natural 
and  proper  reflex  act,  or  consequence  of  true  faith,  and  should 
usually  follow,  through  self-examination  and  experience ;  but 
that  iLis  not  ut  theessence  of  faith,  ist.  Because,  then,  another 
proposition  would  be  the  object  of  faith.  Not  whosoever 
believeth  shall  be  saved ;  but  "  I  am  saved."  The  latter  is  a 
deduction,  in  which  the  former  is  miajor  premise.  2d.  The 
humble  and  modest  soul  would  be  inextricably  embarrassed  in 
coming  to  Christ.  It  would  say:  "  I  must  believe  that  I  am 
saved,  in  order  to  be  saved.  But  I  feel  myself  a  lost  sinner,  in 
need  of  salvation.  3rd.  God  could  not  justly  punish  the  non- 
elect  for  not  believing  what  would  not  have  been  true  if  they  had 
believed  it.  4th.  The  experience  of  God's  people  in  all  ages 
contradicts  it.  Ps.  Ixxiii  :  13 ;  xxxi  :  22  ;  Ixxvii  ;  2,  9,  10.  5th, 
The  command  to  go  on  to  the  attainment  of  assurance,  as  a 
higher  grace,  addressed  to  believers,  shows  that  a  true  believer 
may  lack  it. 

God  has  chosen  faith  for  the  peculiar,  organic  function  of 

instrumentally  uniting  the  soul  to  Christ, 
gaLuusrificatio^^^"    ^^  as   to  partake  of    His    righteousness  and 

spiritual  life.  Why  ?  This  question  should 
be  answered  with  modesty.  One  reason,  we  may  sup- 
pose, is,  that  human  glorying  may  be  extinguished  by  attach- 
ing man's  whole  salvation  instrumentally  to  an  act  of  the  soul, 
whose  organic  aspect  is  merely  receptive,  and  has  no  procur- 


6t2  syllabus  and  notes 

ing  righteousness  whatever.  Rom.  iii  :  27.  Another  reason  is, 
that  behef  is,  throughout  all  the  acts  of  the  soul,  the  preliminary 
and  condition  of  acting.  See  i  Jno.  v  :  4,  5.  Everything  man 
does  is  because  he  believes  something.  Faith,  in  its  widest 
sense,  is  the  mainspring  of  man's  whole  activity.  Every  voli- 
tion arises  from  a  belief,  and  none  can  arise  without  it.  Hence, 
in  selecting  faith,  instead  of  some  other  gracious  exercise,  which 
may  be  the  fruit  of  regeneration,  as  the  organic  instrument  of 
justification,  God  has  proceeded  on  a  profound  knowledge  of 
man's  nature,  and  in  strict  conformity  thereto.  A  third  reason 
may  perhaps  be  found  in  the  fact  that  faith  works  by  love  :  that 
it  purifies  the  soul ;  and  is  the  victory  which  overcomes  worldli- 
ness.  See  Confesson  of  Faith,  ch.  xiv  :  §  ii,  especially  its  first 
propositions.  Since  faith  is  the  principle  of  sanctification,  in  a 
sinner's  heart,  it  was  eminently  worthy  of  a  God  of  holiness,  to 
select  it  as  a  term  of  justification. 


LECTURE  LI. 

UNION  TO  CHRIST. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  By  what  similitudes  is  the  union  of  Christ  with  His  people  set  forth  in  the 
Scripture  ? 

2.  \Vliat  are  the  several  results  to  behevers,  of  this  union  ? 

3.  \Vhat  is  the  essential,  and  what  the  instrumental  bond  of  this  union  ? 

4.  Show  the  resemblances  and  differences  between  this  union  and  tliat  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son ;  between  this  and  that  of  Christ's  divinity  and  humanity ; 
between  this  and  that  of  a  leader  and  his  followers  ? 

5.  Does  this  union  imply  a  literal  conjunction  of  the  substance  of  Christ  with 
that  of  the  behever's  soul  ? 

6.  How  does  the  indwelhng  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  this  union,  differ  from  that  by 
which  it  is  everywhere  present  ? 

7.  Is  this  union  indissoluble  ? 

See  on  whole,  Dick,  Lect.  67.  Ridgley,  Vol.  iii,  Qu.  66.  Calvin's  Inst.,  bk. 
iii,  ch.  I.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  5,  §  i.  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  26.  Hodge,  Theol. 
Vol.  iii,  pp.  650-661. 

TT  is  through  this  union  to  Christ  that  the  whole  application 
of  redemption  is  effectuated  on  the  sinner's  soul.    Although 

all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  dwelleth 
EffectVatTsd^vaSni^'    bodily  in    Him    since    His   glorification     yet 

until  the  union  of  Christ  is  effected,  the 
believer  partakes  of  none  to  its  completeness.  When  made 
one  with  His  Redeeming  Head,  then  all  the  communicable 
graces  of  that  Head  begin  to  transfer  themselves  to  him. 
Thus  we  find  that  each  kind  of  benefit  which  makes  up  redemp- 
tion IS,  in  different  parts  of  the  Scripture,  deduced  from  this 
union  as  their  source ;  justification,  spiritual  strength,  life,  res- 
urrection of  the  body,  good  works,  prayer  and  praise,  sanctifi- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  613 

cation,  perseverance,  &c.,  &c.  Eph.  i:  4,  6,  11,  13;  Col.  i  :  24; 
Rom.  vi :  3,  4,  5,  6,  8  ;  Col.  ii:  10;  Gal.  ii  :  20;  Phil,  iii  :  9;  Jno. 
XV  :  1-5. 

The  nature  of  this  union  is  to  be  deduced  from  a  full  com- 
parison of  all   the   similitudes  by  which  the 
Described    by   Im-    ^^^^    illustrates     it.        In    one    place    it     is 
ages.  .  r 

described    by  the   union   of  a  vine   with    its 

branches  ;  and  in  another,  of  the  stock  of  an  olive  tree  with  its 
limbs.  Jno.  xv  :  1-5  ;  Rom.  xi  :  16-24.  The  stock  is  Christ, 
diffusing  life  and  fructifying  sap  through  all  the  branches. 
Second  ;  Our  Saviour  briefly  likens  this  union  to  that  between 
Himself  and  His  Father.  Jno.  xvii  :  20,  21.  Grace  will  bring 
the  whole  body  of  the  elect  into  a  sweet  accord  with  Christ 
and  each  other,  and  harmony  of  interest  and  volition,  bearing 
some  small  relation  to  that  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Third  : 
We  find  the  union  compared  by  Paul  to  that  between  the  head 
and  the  members  in  the  body  ;  the  head,  Christ,  being  the  seat 
and  source  of  vitality  and  volition,  as  well  as  of  sense  and  intel- 
ligence ;  the  members  being  united  to  it  by  a  common  set  of 
nerves,  and  community  of  feeling,  and  life,  and  motion.  Eph. 
iv  :  15,  16.  Fourth  :  We  find  the  union  likened  to  that  between 
husband  and  wife :  where  by  the  indissoluble  and  sacred  tie, 
they  are  constituted  one  legal  person,  the  husband  being  the 
ruler,  but  both  united  by  a  tender  affection  and  complete  com- 
munity of  interest,  and  of  legal  obligations.  Eph.  v  :  31,  32; 
Ps.  xlv  :  9.  Fifth :  It  is  illustrated  by  the  union  of  the  stones 
in  a  house  to  their  foundation  corner-stone,  where  the  latter 
sustains  all  the  rest,  and  they  are  cemented  to  it  and  to  each 
other,  forming  one  whole.  But  stones  are  inanimate  ;  and 
therefore  the  sacred  writer  indicates  that  the  simile  is,  in  its 
nature,  inadequate  to  express  the  whole  truth,  by  describing  the 
corner-stone  as  a  living  thing,  and  the  other  stones  as  living 
things  together  composing  a  spiritual  temple.  See  i  Cor. 
iii  :  1 1-16  ;    i  Pet.  ii  :  4-6. 

Now,  these  are  all  professed  similes  or  metaphors ;  yet 
they  must  indicate,  when  reduced  to  literal  language,  an 
^exceedingly  close  and  important  union.  It  is  hard  to  see  how 
human  language  could  be  more  completely  exhausted,  to  ex- 
press this  idea,  without  running  it  into  identity  of  substance 
■  or  person.  Its  nature  may  be  best  unfolded  by  looking  suc- 
■cessively  at  its  results,  conditions,  &c.  Let  it  be  again  noted, 
that  our  union  to  Christ  bears  to  all  the  several  benefits  which 
effectuate  our  redemption,  the  relation  of  whole  to  its  parts. 

The  results  of  this  union  may  be  said  to  be  threefold  ;  or, 

in  different  language,  it  may  be  said  that  the 

2.  Why  Called  Mys-  •  •  ^      •       ^.t  r        "^  ,   *.      a    t  i 

tical?    Three  Results     union   exists   m  three   lorms.       1st.  A  Legal 

union,  in  virtue  of  which  Christ's  righteous- 
ness is  made  ours,  and  we  "  are  accepted  in  the  beloved." 
.'See    Rom.    viii :  i  ;   Phil,    iii :  9.       This    is  justification.     2d.  A 


6 14  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Spiritual,  or  mystical  union,  by  which  we  participate  in  spiritual 
influences  and  qualities  of  our  Head  Jesus  Christ ;  and  have 
wrought  in  us,  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  was 
given  to  Him  without  measure,  spiritual  life,  with  all  its  result- 
ant qualities  and  actings.  See  Jno.  v  :  25,  26;  xv :  2-5  ;  Eph. 
ii :  5  ;  Rom.  vi :  1 1  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  17  ;  Gal.  ii :  20.  This  union  the 
orthodox  divines  have  called  mystical,  [wjazr/.a),  borrowing  the 
expression,  niost  likely,  from  Eph.  v  :  32.  They  did  not  mean 
thereby,  that  in  their  views  of  this  union  spiritual,  they  adopted 
the  views  held  by  the  ancient  and  mediaeval  Mystics,  who 
taught  an  essential  oneness  of  the  human  intelligence  with  the 
substance  of  the  Aoyo^  to  be  developed  by  quietism  and  asceti- 
cism. Orthodox  divines  have  rather  meant  thereby,  what  is  the 
proper,  scriptural  idea  of  the  word  ijLoavrjfnov  from  ivjio,  some- 
thing hidden  and  secret :  not  something  incomprehensible  and 
incapable  of  being  intelligibly  stated.  The  spiritual  union  is 
indeed  mysterious  in  that  sense ;  but  not  otherwise  than  regen- 
eration is  mysterious.  The  incomprehensible  feature  is  not 
only  similar,  but  identical  ;  it  is  one  and  the  same  mystery. 
But  the  tie  is  called  mystical,  because  it  is  invisible  to  human 
eyes  ;  it  is  not  identical  with  that  outward  or  professed  union, 
instituted  by  the  sacraments  ;  it  is  a  secret  kept  between  the 
soul  and  its  Redeemer,  save  as  it  is  manifested  by  its  fruits. 
The  third  result  of  the  union,  is  the  communion  of  saints.  As 
the  stones  of  the  wall,  overlapping  the  corner-stone,  also  over- 
lap each  other,  and  are  cemented  all  into  one  mass,  so,  every 
soul  that  is  united  truly  to  Christ,  is  united  to  His  brethren. 
Hence,  follows  an  identity  of  spirit  and  principle,  a  community 
of  aims,  and  a  oneness  of  affection  and  sympathy. 

The  essential  bond  of  this  union  is  the  indwelling  influence 
of  the    Holy  Ghost.     This   Spirit   is  indeed 

%.      Its  Instrumental     •  j        .„    •  i.  •     tt-     „         • 

and  Essential  Bond.  immense  and  omnipresent ;  nor  is  His  provi- 
dential agency  dead  or  inoperative  in  any 
creature  of  God.  But  in  the  souls  of  believers,  He  puts  forth  a 
different  agency,  viz.:  the  same  which  He  exerts  in  the  man 
Jesus  Christ,  by  which  He  fills  Him  with  all  the  fullness  of  the 
Godhead.  Thus  the  bond  of  union  is  formed.  The  vegetative 
influences  of  the  sun  are  on  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth.  In 
many  plants  those  influences  produce  a  growth,  wild  or  useless, 
or  noxious  ;  but  in  every  cultivated  field,  they  exhibit  themselves 
in  the  vegetation  of  the  sweet  and  wholesome  corn  which  is  plant- 
ed there.  In  proof  of  this  bond,  see  i  Cor.  iii :  16  ;  vi :  17  :  xii : 
13  ;  I  Jno.  iii :  24  :  iv:  13.  To  return  to  the  Bible  figure  of  a. 
vine  or  tree,  the  sap  which  is  in  the  branches  was  first  in  the 
stock,  and  proceeded  thence  to  the  branches.  It  has  in  them 
the  same  chemical  and  vital  characters ;  and  produces  every- 
where the  same  fruit.  The  sense  and  feeling  of  every  limb  are 
the  common  sense  and  feeling  of  the  head.  Hence  we  are  enti- 
tled to  take  this  pleasing  view  of  all  genuine,  spiritual  affections 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6l$ 

in  the  members  of  Christ ;  each  one  is  in  its  humble  measure, 
the  counterpart  of  similar  spiritual  affections  in  Christ.  There 
are  indeed  some  affections,  e.  g.,  those  of  penitence,  which 
Christ  cannot  explicitly  share,  because  He  is  sinless ;  but  even 
here  the  tide  of  holy  affection,  of  enmity  to  all  moral  impurity, 
and  love  for  holiness,  wells  from  the  Saviour's  bosom;  in  pass- 
ing through  the  believer's  sinful  bosom  it  assumes  the  form  of 
penitence,  because  modified  by  his  personal  sense  of  sin.  Each 
gracious  affection  is  a  feeble  reflex  of  the  same  affection,  exist- 
ing, in  its  glorious  perfection,  in-  our  Redeemer's  heart.  As 
when  we  see  a  mimic  sun  in  the  pool  of  water  on  the  earth's 
surface,  we  know  that  it  is  only  there  because  the  sun  shineth 
in  his  strength  in  the  heavens.  How  inexpressible  the  com- 
fort and  encouragement  arising  from  this  identity  of  affec- 
tion and  principle  !  Especially  is  it  consoling  in  the  assur- 
ance which  it  gives  us  of  the  answer  to  all  our  prayers  which 
are  conceived  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Does  the  believer  have,  for 
instance,  a  genuine  and  spiritual  aspiration  for  the  growth  of 
Zion  ?  Let  him  take  courage ;  that  desire  was  only  born  in  his 
breast  because  it  before  existed  in  the  breast  of  His  head,  that 
Mediator  whom  the  Father   heareth  always. 

The  instrumental  bond  of  the  union  is  evidently  faith — i.  e., 
when  the  believer  exercises  faith,  the  union  begins  ;  and  by  the 
exercise  of  faith  it  is  on  his  part  perpetuated.  See  Eph.  iii : 
17;  Jno.  xiv  ;  23,  Gal.  iii :  26,  27,  28.  First:  God  embraces 
us  with  His  electing  and  renewi-ng  love ;  and  we  then  embrace 
Him  by  the  actings  of  our  faith,  so  that  the  union  is  consum- 
mated on  both  sides.  One  of  the  results,  or,  if  you  please, 
forms,  of  the  union  is  justification.  Of  this,  faith  is  the  instru- 
ment ;  for,  "  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with  God." 
The  other  form  is  sanctification.  Faith  has  the  instrumental  rela- 
tion to  this  also;  for  He  "  purifieth  our  hearts  by  faith  ;"  "  faith 
worketh  by  love  ;  "  and  it  is  the  victory  which  overcometh  the 
world. 

Christ  compares  the  spiritual  union  of  His  people  to  Him- 
self, with  that  of  Himself  to  His  Father.  The 
tratecl.  ^  "'°"  ^^"  resemblance  must  be  in  the  community  of 
graces,  of  affections,  and  of  volitions  ;  and 
not  in  the  identity  of  substance  and  nature.  Our  conscious- 
ness assures  us  that  our  personality  and  separate  free-agency 
are  as  complete  after  as  before  the  union ;  and  that  our  being  is 
no  how  merged  in  the  substance  of  Christ.  To  this  agree  all 
the  texts  which  address  the  believer  as  still  a  separate  person,  a 
responsible  free  agent,  and  a  man,  not  a  God.  The  idea  of  a 
personal  or  substantial  union  would  imply  the  deification  of  man, 
which  is  profane  and  unmeaning.  But  when  we  consider 
Christ's  relation  as  Mediatorial  person  (and  not  merely  as 
Aoyoc)  to  God  the  Father,  we  have  a  more  apt  representation  of 
His  union  to  His  people.      For  this  union   is   maintained  by  a 


6l6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

spiritual  indwelling  in  Him.  The  union  between  Christ's  divin- 
ity and  humanity,  as  conceived  by  the  Nestorians  (see  lecture 
xxxix.)  would  afford  also  a  more  apt  representation  of  the 
believer's  union.  The  Nestorians  represented  it  as  a  a'jvaifzco., 
not  a  h(oa::,  and  expressly  asserted  it  to  be  generically  the 
same  with,  and  only  higher  in  degree  than,  the  mystical  union 
of  the  Godhead  with  believers.  But  then,  they  were  understood 
as  making  of  Christ  two  persons,  We,  who  hold  with  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon,  cannot  use  theunion  of  the  two  natures  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  to  illustrate  the  believer's  union  to  Him ; 
because  we  have  shown  that  it*does  not  result  in  a  proper  one- 
ness of  person.  The  Church  with  its  Head  is  only  a  spiritual 
corporation,  and  not  a  literal  person. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  to    represent  Christ's  union  as  only 
,  ,,        that  of  a  mere  Leader  and  His  followers  a 

Not    that    of    Mere  •  r  .■  .     •    .  .  j        rr     ,• 

Leader.  union  ot  sentiment,  interests    and    anections, 

would  be  entirely  too  feeble.  In  the  case  of 
the  Leader  admired  and  devotedly  followed,  there  is  only  an 
emission  of  moral  suasion  and  example,  producing  these 
results.  In  the  case  of  Christ  and  His  people,  there  is  far 
more  ;  there  is  the  emission  of  a  Divine  and  vital  Substance, 
the  Holy  Ghost,  who  literally  unites  Christ  and  His  people,  by 
dwelling  and  operating  identically  (though  far  differently  in 
degree)  in  both  ;  and  who  establishes  and  maintains  in  the 
creature  by  supernatural  power,  the  same  peculiar  condition, 
called  spiritual  hfe  ,which  exists,  in  the  Head.  In  a  word,  there 
is  truly  a  sap,  a  cement  which  unites  the  two,  that  is  a  thing, 
and  not  merely  an  influence,  a  divine,  living,  and  Almighty 
Thing,  viz.:     Holy  Ghost. 

Yet,  while  we  thus  assert  a  proper  and  true  indwelling  of 
pi.-  ^^^  Holy  Ghost,  with  the  believer's  soul  (and 
of^the  Subs?ance^of  thf  ^^"s  mediately  of  the  soul  and  Christ),  we 
Godhead.  see  nothing  in  the  Bible  to  warrant  the  belief 

of  a  literal  conjunction  of  the  substance  of  the  Godhead  in 
Christ,  with  the  substance  of  the  believer's  soul ;  much  less  of  a 
literal,  local  conjunction  of  the  whole  mediatorial  person,  includ- 
ing the  humanity,  with  the  soul.  "  Christ  does  dwell  in  our 
hearts  by  faith."  "  It  is  He  that  liveth  in  us,"  but  it  is  in  a 
multitude  of  other  places  explained  to  mean  the  indwelling  of 
His  Holy  Ghost. 

Now,  I  cannot  but  believe  that  the  gross  and  extreme 
Determin  es  our  views  of  a  real  presence  and  op?{s  oper-atitm,  in 
View  of  Lord's  Sup-  the  Lord's  supper,  which  prevailed  in  the 
'^^^'  Church    from   the    patristic  ages  throughout 

the  mediaeval,  and  which  infect  the  minds  of  many  Protestants 
now,  arise  from  an  erroneous  aud  overstrained  view  of  the  mys- 
tical union.  This  union  effectuates  redemption.  We  all  agree 
that  the  sacraments  are  its  giigns  and  seals.  (See  i  Cor,  xii : 
13  :   I  Cor.  X  :   17,  ct  passim).      Now,  the  Fathers  seem  to  have 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  617 

imagined  that  spiritual  life  must  result  from  a  literal  and  sub- 
stantive intromission  of  Christ's  person  into  our  souls,  just  as 
corporeal  nutrition  can  only  result  when  the  food  is  taken  sub- 
stantially into  the  stomach,  and  assimilated  with  our  corporeal 
substance.  In  this  sense  they  seem  to  have  understood  the 
eating  of  Jno.  vi :  5 1^  etc.  (which  was  currently  misapplied  to 
the  Lord's  supper).  Hence,  how  natural  that  in  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, the  sacramental  sign  and  seal  of  the  vitalizing  union,  they 
should  imagine  a  real  presence,  not  only  of  the  God-head 
naturally,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  His  sanctifying  influences, 
but  of  the  whole  Mediatorial  person,  and  a  literal  feeding 
thereon.  Hence,  afterward,  transubstantiation  and  consubstan- 
tiation,  and  the  more  refined,  though  equally  impossible  theory 
of  Calvii),  of  a  literal,  and  yet  only  spiritual  feeding  on  the 
whole  person. 

The  same  general  law  of  thought  appears  in  what  may  be 
called  the  Pan-Christism  of  the  "  Mercersburg  School,"  of 
modern  semi-Pantheism.  These  divines  having  revived  the  old 
mystical  idea  of  the  substantive  oneness  of  the  human  and 
divine  spirit,  through  the  medium  of  the  incarnation,  consist- 
ently assert  a  species  of  real-presence  of  the  mediatorial  per- 
son in  the  Supper.     The  connection  is  conclusive. 

Let  us  disembarrass  our  views  of  the  mystical  union;  and 
these  unscriptural  perversions  of  the  sacraments  will  fall  away 
of  themselves.  We  shall  make  them  what  the  Word  makes 
them — commemorative  signs,  and  divinely  appointed  seals  of 
covenant  blessings  ;  all  of  which  blessings  are  summed  up  in 
our  legal  and  spiritual  union  to  Jesus  Christ;  and  this  union 
constituted  solely  by  the  blessed  and  ineffable  indwelling  of 
Christ's  Holy  Spirit  in  our  souls,  as  a  principle  of  faith  and 
sanctification.  There  is,  then,  no  other  feeding  on  Christ's  per- 
son but  the  actings  of  the  soul's  faith  responsive  to  the  vital 
motion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  embracing  the  benefits  of  Christ's 
redeeming  work. 

To  one  who  apprehends  the  dignity  and  intimacy  of  this 
union  aright,  there  will  appear  a  strong  a 
soluble.^  ^^^^  "'^'^"  P^i-ori  probability  that  it  will  be  indissoluble. 
The  efficient  parties  to  it  are  Christ  and  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  parties  divine,  omniscient,  immutable.  The  im- 
mediate effect  on  man's  soul  is  the  entrance  of  supernatural 
life,  and  the  beginning  of  the  exercises  of  new  and  character- 
istic and  spiritual  acts.  One  would  hardly  expect  to  find  that 
these  Divine  and  Almighty  Agents  intended  any  such  child's 
play,  as  the  production  of  a  temporary  faith  and  grace,  in  such 
transactions !  When  we  discuss  the  doctrine  of  the  persever- 
ance of  the  saints,  we  shall  find  this  a  priori  evidence  con- 
firmed. Our  purpose  now  is  not  to  anticipate  that  argument ; 
but  to  suggest  at  this  place,  the  presumption. 


LECTURE  LII. 

JUSTIFICATION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  the  importance  of  correct  views  on  this  doctrine  ? 

Dick,  Lect.  69.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xvi,  Qu.  i.  Owen  on  Justification,  (Assem- 
bly's Edit.),  p.  76-82. 

2.  VV'hat  is  the  scriptural  idea  or  meaning  of  God's  acts  of  justification  ?  State 
and  refute  Popish  view,  and  estabhsh  the  true  view. 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  i.  Owen,  ch.  4.  Dick,  Lect.  69.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  2. 
Ridgley,  Qu.  70.  Knapp,  ^  109.  Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  23,  §  i. 
Bellarmine's  Controversia.  Liber  de  Justificatione.  Council  of  Trent.  Ses.  6, 
ch.  7.     Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  iii,  ch.  n.     Dr.  W.  Cunningham,  ch.  21. 

3.  Does  the  inherent  grace  wrought  by  God  in  the  believer's  soul  or  good 
works  proceeding  therefrom,  merit  anything  towards  justification  ? 

Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  iii,  chs.  15,  17.  Turrettin,  Qu.  2.  Owen,  chs.  5,  6.  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  Ses.  6,  chs.  7  to  10,  and  Canons  11,  &c.,  de  Justi.  Bellarmine, 
as  above.     Dr.  A.  Alexander's  Tract  on  Justification. 

4.  Is  justification  mere  remission  of  sins  ;  or  does  it  include  the  bestowal  of  a  title 
to  favour  and  reward  ?  And  is  Christ's  active,  as  well  as  His  passive  obedience,, 
imputed  to  behevers  therefore  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  3,4.  Owen.  ch.  12.  Dick,  Lect.  69,  70.  Hill,  as  above.  Knapp, 
§  115.     Watson,  as  above,  §  2.     Dr.  A.  Alexander,  as  above. 

5.  What  is  adoption? 

Turrettin.  Loc.  xvi,  Qu.  6.  Dick,  Lect.  73.  Ridgley,  Qu.  74.  See  on  whole,. 
Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  1 1  ;  and  Catechisms,  on  Qu.  4.  Dorner's  Hist.  Prot. 
Theol.  Vol.  i,  g  3,  of  Div.  3. 

TT  is  obvious  to  the  first  glance,  that  it  is  a  question  of  the 
first  importance  to  sinners,  "  How  shall  man  be  just  with 
,    ^  God?"     The  doctrine  of  justification  was  the 

I.  Its  Importance.  ,.,..,  •',  .        r 

radical  prmciple,  as  we  have  seen,  out  01 
which  grew  the  Reformation  from  Popery.  It  was  by  adopting 
this,  that  the  Reformers  were  led  out  of  darkness  into  light. 
Indeed,  when  we  consider  how  many  of  the  fundamental  points 
of  theology  are  connected  with  justification,  we  can  hardly 
assign  it  too  important  a  place.  Our  view  of  this  doctrine  must 
determine,  or  be  determined  by,  our  view  of  Christ's  satis- 
faction ;  and  this,  again,  carries  along  with  it  the  whole  doc- 
trine concerning  the  natures  and  person  of  Christ.  And  if  the 
proper  deity  of  Him  be  denied,  that  of  the  Holy  Ghost  w^ill 
very  certainly  fall  along  with  it ;  so  that  the  very  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  is  destroyed  by  extreme  views  concerning  justifi- 
cation. Again :  "  It  is  God  that  justifieth."  How  evident, 
then,  that  our  views  of  justification  will  involve  those  of  God's 
law  and  moral  attributes  ?  The  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  also 
brought  in  question,  when  we  assert  the  impossibility  of  man's 
so  keeping  the  law  of  God,  as  to  justify  himself  It  is  a  more 
familiar  remark,  that  the  introduction  of  the  true  doctrine  of 
justification  excludes  that  whole  brood  of  Popish  inventions, 
purgatory  and  penance,  works  of  supererogation,  indulgences, 
618 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  619 

sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  merit  of  congruity  acquired  by  alms 
and  mortifications. 

Not  to  go   again  into  these  subjects   at   large,  which   are 
.  .      illustrated  in  your  history  of  the    Reforma- 

Ground.'^^  °"  ^^  '  ^  tion,  it  may  be  briefly  repeated,  that  as  is  our 
conception  of  the  meritorious  ground  of  jus- 
tification, such  will  be  our  conception  of  its  nature.  This  prop- 
osition will  be  found  necessarily  decisive  of  every  man's  scheme 
of  justification,  be  it  what  it  may.  If  its  ground  is  absolute, 
complete  and  infinite,  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  also 
will  be  an  act  complete,  final  and  absolute,  equal  in  all  justified 
persons,  admitting  no  increment,  and  leaving  neither  need  nor 
room  for  any  sacramental  merit  or  penitential  atonement. 
Once  more  :  The  blessed  doctrine  of  an  assurance  of  hope  is 
intimately  dependent  on  justification.  If  the  latter  is  grounded 
on  infused  grace,  and  admits  of  loss  and  increment,  the  Chris- 
tian's opinion  concerning  the  certainty  of  his  own  justification 
can  never  become  an  assurance,  this  side  the  grave ;  for  the 
very  sufficient  reason,  that  the  fact  itself  is  still  suspended.  If 
he  were  assured  of  it,  he  would  believe  an  untruth ;  for  the 
thing  itself  is  not  yet  sure.  Hence,  the  propriety  of  Luther's 
decision,  when,  taught  by  his  personal,  as  well  as  his  theologi- 
cal, experience,  he  declared  justification  to  be  the  cardinal  doc- 
trine of  the  Church's  creed. 

The  question  concerning  the  true  nature  of  justification 
should  be  strictly  one  of  exegesis.  All  are 
Temi.  '^'^"  °^  °  agreed  that  it  is  God's  act.  Hence,  the  opin- 
ions of  men,  or  the  human  meanings  of 
words  by  which  men  have  expressed  God's  descriptions  of  it  in 
Scripture,  are  not  worth  one  particle,  in  determining  its  nature. 
It  may,  however,  be  remarked,  that  all  English  theologians 
have  adopted  the  Latin  word  justify  [Justijico)  from  the  Vetiis 
Itala,  Latin  Fathers  and  Latin  Vulgate,  an  unclassical  word, 
which  would  mean,  etymologically,  to  make  righteous.  I  may 
also  remind  you,  that  Augustine,  and  a  few  of  the  other  fath- 
ers, misled  by  this  etymology,  and  their  ignorance  of  Greek, 
conceived  and  spoke  of  justification  as  a  change  of  moral  state, 
as  well  as  of  legal  condition.  Here  is  the  poisonous  germ  of  the 
erroneous  doctrine  of  the  Scholastics  and  of  Trent  concerning 
it;  a  striking  illustration  of  the  high  necessity  of  Hebrew  and 
Greek  literature,  in  the  teachers  of  the  Church. 

When  we  pass  to  the  original  Scriptures,  we  find  the  act  of 

justification    described    by    a     Hebrew    and 

ish  ^DefinS;      Our    Greek  verb,  p^"lljn,  (hiphil)  and  of/JuUo,  with 

their  derivatives.  Now,  the  Romish  Church 
asserts,  that  the  Scriptural  idea  of  the  act  is  not  only  God's 
accounting,  but  also  making  the  sinner  righteous,  by  both  in- 
fusing the  divine  righteousness,  and  declaring  it  acceptable,  in 


620  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  sinner.  We  believe  that  the  true  meaning  is  not  to  make 
righteous  in  that  sense,  but  only  to  declare  righteous  or  make 
righteous  in  the  forensic  sense  ;  and  that  the  act  of  justification 
does  not  change  the  moral  state,  but  only  declares,  in  the  forum 
of  heaven,  the  legal  state  of  the  sinner.  The  soundest  reasons 
for  this,  we  shall  give,  without  any  claim  whatever  to  originality, 
merely  aiming  to  present  them  in  a  brief,  lucid,  and  logical 
order.  The  Holy  Ghost,  then,  by  justification,  intends  a  foren- 
sic act,  and  not  a  moral  change. 

(a)  Because,  in  a  number  of  cases,  He  expresses  a  justifi- 
p     ,  cation  of  objects  incapable   of  being  made 

righteous  by  a  moral  change,  by  the  justify- 
ing agents,  in  the  given  cases.  Thus,  Wisdom :  Matt,  xi  :  19. 
God :  Ps.  li  :  4 ;  Job  xx:xii  :  2 ;  Luke  vii  :  29. 

(b)  Because,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  to  justify  is  the  con- 
trast of  condemning ;  e.  g..  Job.  ix  :  20  ;  Deut.  xxv  :  i  ;  Rom, 
viii  :  33,  34,  &c.  Now,  to  condemn  does  not  change,  but  only 
declares  the  culprit's  moral  condition  ;  it  merely  fixes  or  appor- 
tions the  legal  consequence  of  his  faults.  Therefore,  to  justify 
does  not  make  holy,  but  only  announces  and  determines  the 
legal  relation. 

(c)  In  some  places,  the  act  of  a  magistrate  in  justifying 
the  wicked  is  pronounced  very  sinful,  Prov,  xvii  :  15  ;  Is.  v  : 
23,  Now,  if  to  justify  were  to  make  righteous,  to  justify  the 
wicked  would  be  a  most  praiseworthy  and  benevolent  act  on  the 
magistrate's  part.  From  this  very  argument,  indeed,  some  have 
raised  a  captious  objection  ;  saying,  if  it  is  so  iniquitous  in  the 
human  magistrate  to  pronounce  righteous  him  who  is  personally 
unrighteous,  it  must  be  wrong  for  God  to  justify  in  this  (Calvin- 
istic)  sense,  the  sinner.  The  answer  is,  that  God,  unlike  the 
magistrate,  is  able  to  impute  to  the  justified  ungodly,  a  vicarious 
satisfaction  for  his  guilt,  and  to  accompany  this  justification  with 
sanctifying  grace,  ensuring  his  future  obedience. 

(d)  The  adjuncts  of  the  act  of  justification  are  all  such  as 
would  indicate  a  forensic  character  for  it.  Rom.  iii  :  19,  20  : 
the  objects  of  the  act  are  men  who  are  OTiodr/.nc.  See  also 
Job  ix  :  2,  3  ;  Ps.  cxliii  :  2.  There  is  a  bar  at  which  the  act  is 
performed.  Luke  xvi  :  15  ;  Rom.  iv  :  2  ;  Is.  xliii  :  26.  There 
is  an  advocate,  pleading  our  cause,      i  Jno.  ii  :  i. 

e.)  Finally,  the  equivalent  expressions  all  point  to  a  foren- 
sic act.  Thus,  in  Rom.  iv  :  4-6,  justification  is  explained  by  the 
forgiveness  of  iniquity,  and  covering  of  sin.  In  Rom.  v  :  9,  we 
are  justified  by  His  blood  and  saved  from  wrath  through  Him; 
and  V  :  10,  it  is  farther  explained  by  reconciliation.  In  Jno.  iii : 
18;  V  :  24,  &c.,  it  is  being  not  condemned,  and  passing  from 
death  to  life.  In  a  word,  the  only  sense  of  the  word  which 
makes  Paul's  argument  in  Romans,  ch.  ii:S,  intelligible,  is  the 
forensic  sense ;  for  the  whole  question  there  is  concerning  the 
way  of  acquittal  for  a  sinner  before  God. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  62  F 

Papists,  therefore,  admit  that  the  original  words  often  carry 
.  a  forensic  sense,  even  an  exclusive  one;  and 

opis  jecions.  ^j^^^  j^  ^j^^  justification  of  the  sinner  the  fo- 
rensic idea  is  also  present;  but  they  claim  that,  in  addition,  a 
production  of  inherent  righteousness  in  the  justified  person  is 
intended  by  the  word ;  so  that  the  believer  is  accounted,  be- 
cause made  personally  righteous  in  justification.  And  in  sup- 
port of  this,  they  quote  Is.  liii  :  1 1  ;  Dan.  xii  :  3,  from  the  Old 
Testament,  and  in  the  New,  Rom.  iii  :  24 ;  iv  :  22 ;  vi  :  4,  5  ; 
viii  :  10,  30;  I  Cor.  vi  :  ii  ;  Heb.  xi  :  4;  Titus  iii  :  5-7;  Rev. 
xxii  :  II.  Of  the  first  two  texts  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  the 
forensic  sense  of  the  verb  is  perfectly  tenable,  when  we  assign 
only  an  instrumental  agency  to  the  gospel,  or  minister  men- 
tioned ;  and  that  sort  of  agency  the  Papist  himself  is  compelled 
to  give  them.  Of  i  Cor.  vi  :  ii,  it  should  be  said  that  it  is  a 
case  of  introverted  parallelism,  in  which  the  "  washing  "  is  gen- 
eral; and  the  sanctifying  and  justifying  the  two  branches 
thereof.  Can  they  be  identical :  tautological  ?  "  Ye  are  sanc- 
tified by  the  Spirit  of  our  God,  and  justified  in  the  name  of 
Christ."  Rev.  xxii  :  ii,  only  has  a  seeming  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject, in  consequence  of  the  Vulgate's  mistranslation  from  an 
erroneous  reading.  The  other  passages  scarcely  require  notice. 
The  Protestant  view  of  justification  as  to 
3.  Protestant  Dehni-    j^g  nature,  and  meritorious  cause  may  be  seen 

uon.  •      f-1  /-.  1  • 

in  Shorter  Catechism,  que  33. 
The  doctrine   of  Rome   is  a   masterpiece  of  cunning  and 

plausible  error.     According  to   this  doctrine, 
initoRome°."'^''°''^'   justification  is  rather  to  be  conceived  of  as  a 

process,  than  an  absolute  and  complete  act. 
The  initiation  of  this  process  is  due  to  the  gracious  operation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  (bestowed  first  in  Baptism,)  infusing  and  in- 
working  a  fides  fonnata  in  the  soul.  Free  will  is  by  itself  in- 
adequate for  such  an  exercise,  but  yet  neither  doth  the  Holy 
Ghost  produce  it,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  contingent 
will  of  the  believer.  So  that  Rome's  doctrine  herein  is  syner- 
gistic. Moreover,  the  meritorious  cause  which  purchases  for 
the  believer,  this  grace  of  a  fides  fonnata,  is  Christ's  righteous- 
ness and  intercession.  But  now,  the  a.'i'd-r^,  with  resultant  good 
works,  thus  inwrought  by  grace,  is  the  righteousness  which  is 
imputed  to  the  believer,  for  his  justification — i.  e.,  to  entitle  him 
to  life  and  adoption ;  so  that  the  work  of  justification  not  only 
accounts,  but  makes  the  sinner  personally  righteous.  It  will  be 
seen  how  cunningly  this  doctrine,  by  mixing  justification  with 
sanctification,  avails  itself  of  the  seeming  support  of  such  pass- 
ages as  Rom.  iv  :  22,  24 ;  x  :  10 ;  Acts  x  :  35  ;Gal.  v  :  6 ;  Jas.  ii : 
26,  how  plausibly  it  evades  those  peculiar  texts,  as  Rom.  i  :  17; 
Phil,  iii  :  9,  which  say  that  the  righteousness  which  justifies  us 
is  God's  ;  and  how  "  it  keeps  the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear, 
and  breaks  it  to  the  sense,"   in  seeming  to  ascribe   something; 


622  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

to  the  merit  of  Christ,  while  yet  it  is  practically  justification  by 
works. 

According  to  the  Council  of  Trent  then,  the  final  cause  of 
justification  is  (correctly),  God's  glory  in  the 
Causes  of  Justifica-    bestowal  of  eternal  life.     The  efficient  cause, 
bon  according  to  Rome.  ^      ,,  ,,  ...  ^.r.       ■    i  ^ 

God  s  grace  ;  the  meritorious  cause,  the  right- 
eousness of  Jesus  Christ ;  (i.  e.,  of  His  passion);  the  instrumen- 
tal cause,  baptism ;  the  formal  cause,  the  infused  righteousness 
of  God,  dwelling  in  the  believer.  Justification  will  consequently 
be  imperfect  in  all,  different  in  degree  in  different  ones,  capa- 
ble of  increment  and  diminution,  and  liable  to  entire  loss, 
in  case  of  backsliding ;  nor  can  its  continuance  unto  glory  be 
certainly  ascertained  by  the  believer  (except  in  case  of  inspira- 
tion), inasmuch  as  its  continuance  is  not  itself  certain. 

Now  all  sound   Protestants  assert,   on   the   contrary,  that 

Justification  not  by  ^^ere  is  no  other  justification  than  that  which 
Inherent  Grace  and  its  Romanists  describe  as  the  initiation  thereof, 
Works.  which  is  a  co.mplete   and  absolute  act ;  done 

for  the  believer  once  for  all,  perfect  and  complete  in  all,  needing 
and  admitting  no  increment ;  and  above  all,  that  God  is  not 
moved  in  any  sort,  to  bestow  this  grace  of  justification  by  the 
congruous  merit  of  our  inwrought  holiness  ;  but  that  this  latter 
is,  on  the  contrary,  one  of  the  fruits  of  our  justification.  We  ut- 
terly exclude  our  own  inherent  holiness. 

(a.)  Because,  however  gracious,  it  is  always  imperfect.  But 
the  Law  of  God  (Gal.  iii  :  lo;    Jas.  ii :   lo,) 

Arguments.  ^^^  accept  nothing  but  a  perfect  righteous- 

ness. Nor  is  it  worth  the  Papist's  while  to  say,  that  the  believ- 
er's holiness  is  perfect  tu  habitn,  but  imperfect  in  actu.  They 
also  plead,  since  conversion  is  God's  work,  the  godliness  infused 
must  be  perfect  in  principle,  because  "  the  work  of  our  Rock 
is  perfect."  Deut.  xxxii  :  4.  I  reply.  His  own  works  are,  of 
course,  perfect;  but  it  may  be  far  otherwise  with  those  in  which 
imperfect  man  is  recipient,  and  his  feeble  faculties  means.  I 
urge,  farther,  that  it  is  a  fiction  to  represent  that  godliness  as 
perfect  in  disposition  and  principle,  which  is  imperfect  in  act. 
For  the  act  expresses  the  principle.  Said  our  Saviour  :  "Make 
the  tree  good,  and  the  fruit  good."  It  is  a  favorite  claim  of  un- 
believers and  Socinians,  to  say  that  their  intentions  and  hearts 
are  better  than  their  conduct :  whereas,  Bible-saints  always  con- 
fess the  human  heart  worse  than  its  outward  developments. 
And  last :  the  plea  would  not  avail  the  Papist,  if  granted  ;  be- 
cause God  says  that  when  man  is  judged  on  his  merits,  it  is  the 
overt  act  by  which  he  is  especially  tried.     Matt,  xii  :  37. 

(b.)  The  Apostle  sternly  excludes  works  from  the  ground  of 
justification.     Rom.  iii  :  20,  28,  &c.,  &c.    And 

Evasion  of  Rom.  ni :    j^.   j^  no  adequate   answer  to  say:    he  means 

'      '  only  to  exclude  ceremonial  works.     For  be- 

sides that,  it  is  improbable  the  Apostle  would  ever  have  thought 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  623 

it  worth  his  while  to  argue  against  a  justification  by  ceremonial 
works  alone,  inasmuch  as  we  have  no  proof  any  Jew  of  that  day 
held  such  a  theory;  we  know  that  the  Hebrew  mind  was  not  ac- 
customed to  make  the  distinction  between  ceremonial  and  moral, 
positive  and  natural  precepts.  Moreover,  the  law  whose  works 
are  excluded  is,  evidently  from  the  context,  the  law  whose 
works  might  prompt  boasting,  the  law  which  was  over  Jew  and 
Gentile  alike^the  law  which  was  the  term  of  the  Covenant  of 
works,  and  from  whose  curse  Christ  delivers  us. 

Another  evasion  is  attempted,  by  saying  the  Apostle  only 

excludes  the  works  of  the  unrenewed  heart. 
Another  Evasion.  ^^  ^^^j^  .    ^^^    -^  ^^^^^^    j^j^  ^^-^^   ^^   ^^^^^ 

their  exclusion,  when  nobody  was  so  impudent  as  to  assert  their 
value?  Again,  his  language  is  general.  He  excludes  all  works 
which  stand  opposed  to  faith  ;  but  there  is  as  much  contrast  be- 
tween working  and  believing,  after,  as  before  conversion.  Then, 
the  illustrations  which  the  Apostle  uses,  are  David  and  Abra- 
ham, all  of  whose  works  he  excludes  from  their  justification. 
Surely  the  Hebrew  would  not  naturally  refer  to  their  good 
works,  as  those  of  an  unsanctified  man  !  In  fine,  the  manner  in 
which,  in  Rom.  vi,  the  Apostle  answers  the  charge  of  "  making 
void  the  law  through  faith,"  proves  that  he  meant  to  exclude 
all  works. 

(c.)  Our  justification  is  asserted,  in  many  forms,  to  be  all  of 
grace,  to  exclude  boasting,  to  be  by  Christ's  righteousness,  as 
contrasted  with  ours.  We  assert  that  the  freedom  of  grace, 
and  the  honour  of  Christ  in  our  salvation  are  grievously  marred 
by  the  Popish  doctrine.     Human  merit  is  foisted  in. 

(d.)  No  holy  exercises,  nor  gracious  acts,  whatever  their 
source,  have  any  relevancy  to  atone  for  past  guilt.  But  remiss- 
ion of  this  is  the  more  essential  part  of  the  justification,  if 
either  is. 

(e.)  When  once  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  which  the 
Council  of  Trent  allows  to  be  the  meritorious  cause  for  initiat- 
ing a  justified  state,  is  applied,  we  assert  that  the  whole  change 
of  legal  attitude  is  effected ;  and  nothing  remains  that  can  be 
done  more.  The  man  "  is  passed  from  death  unto  life,"  and 
hath  eternal  life,"  Jno.  v  ;  24;  iii  :  36.  There  is  no  condem- 
nation to  him.  Rom.  viii  :  i.  He  "hath  peace  "  with  God. 
R.om.  v  :  I.  He  "  is  reconciled,"  v  ;  10,  and  has  acquired  a  vica- 
rious merit,  which  a  fortiori  3iSsures  all  subsequent  gifts  of  grace 
without  any  additional  purchase.  He  is  adopted.  Jno.  i  :  12. 
In  a  word,  the  righteousness  imputed  being  infinite,  the  justifi- 
cation grounded  on  it  is  at  once  complete,  if  it  exists  at  all. 

(f.)  The  Popish  idea  that  justification  can  be  matured  and 
carried  on  by  inherent  grace  is  inconsistent  with  God's  nature 
and  law.  Suppose  the  believer  reinstated  in  acceptance,  and 
left  to  continue  and  complete  it  by  his  imperfect  graces ;  why 
should  not  his  first  shortcoming-  hurl  him  down  into  a  state  of 


624  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

condemnation  and  spiritual  death,  just  as  Adam's  first  did  him  > 
Then  his  justification  would  have  to  be  initiated  over  again. 
The  only  thing  which  prevents  this,  is  the  perpetual  presenta- 
tion of  Christ's  merit  on  the  believer's  behalf.  So  that  there-  is 
no  room  for  the  deservings  of  inherent  grace. 

The  Catechism  defines  justification  as  a  pardoning  of  all 

our  sins,  and  an  acceptance  of  us  as  righteous 

4  Justification  is  both  jj^  Qod's  sight.     It  is  more  tfian  remission. 

Pardon  and  Adoption.        ,  .         °  .-^i      ^      /^      i>     r  i 

bestowmg  also   a  title  to  God  s  tavour,  and 

adoption  to  that  grace  and  glory  which  would  have  been  won 
had  we  perfectly  kept  the  Covenant  of  Works.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  Arminian  declares  justification  to  be  nothing  but 
simple  forgiveness,  asserting  that,  as  absence  of  life  is  death, 
cessation  of  motion  is  rest,  so  absence  of  guilt  is  justification. 
The  Scriptural  ground  on  which  they  rely  is  that  class  of  pas- 
sages represented  by  Rom.  iv  :  4-8,  where  Paul  defines,  for  in- 
stance, justification  as  that  pardon  of  iniquities  and  covering  of 
sin  which  David  sung  in  Ps.  xxxii.  See  also  Acts  v  :  31  ; 
Eph.  i  :  7  ;  Rom.  v  :  16,  &c.  We  reply:  We  admit  that  for- 
giveness is  the  first  element,  and  a  very  important  element  of 
justification  ;  and  that  wherever  bestowed,  it  always  infallibly 
draws  after  it  the  whole  act  and  grace.  In  passages  where  it 
was  not  the  immediate  scope  of  the  sacred  writer,  therefore,  to 
define  the  whole  extent  of  justification,  what  more  natural  than 
that  it  should  be  denominated  by  this  characteristic  element,  in 
which  a  guilty  conscience  will  naturally  feel  itself  more  immedi- 
ately interested  ?  Surely,  if  in  other  places  we  find  the  act 
described  as  containing  more,  we  should  complete  our  defi- 
nition of  it,  by  taking  in  all  the  elements  which  are  embraced 
in  all  the  places.     We  argue,  then : 

(a)  That  the  use  of  the  words  and  their  meaning  would 
indicate  that  remission  is  not  the  whole  idea  of  justification. 
Surely,  to  declare  righteous  is  another  thing  than  a  mere  decla- 
ration of  exemption  from  penalty,  even  as  righteousness  is 
another  state,  than  that  of  mere  exemption  from  suffering. 
This  leads  us  to  remark : 

(b)  That  the  law  contains  a  two-fold  sanction.     If  its  terms 

be  perfectly  kept,  the  reward  will  be  eternal 

Righteousness  more    jjfg     if  they  be  broken   in   any   respect,  the 

than  Guiltlessness.                    '                 -^  .,,     ,          ,      .1           t->       1             1 

punishment  will    be    death.       Pardon    alone 

would  release  from  the  punishment  of  its  breach,  but  would  not 
entitle  to  the  reward  of  its  performance.  In  other  Avords,  he 
who  broke  it,  and  has  suffered  the  penalty,  therefore  does  not 
stand  on  the  same  platform  with  him  who  has  kept  it.  Sup- 
pose, for  instance,  I  promise  to  my  servants  a  reward  for  keep- 
ing my  commands,  and  threaten  punishment  for  breaking  them. 
At  the  end  of  the  appointed  time,  one  of  them  has  kept  them, 
and  receives  the  reward.  A  second  one  has  broken  them,  and 
is  chastised.     Suppose  this  second  should  then  arise  and  claim 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  625 

his  reward  also,  on  the  ground  that  suffering  the  full  penalty  of 
the  breach  was  an  entire  equivalent  for  perfect  obedience  ? 
Common  sense  would  pronounce  it  absurd.  Hence,  the  Ar- 
minian  logic,  that  remission  is  justification,  is  seen  to  be  erro- 
neous. Since  Christ  steps  into  the  sinner's  stead,  to  fulfil  in  his 
place  the  whole  Covenant  of  Works,  He  must,  in  order  to  pro- 
cure to  us  full  salvation,  both  purchase  pardon  for  guilt,  and  a 
positive  title  to  favour  and  life.  The  sinner  needs  both.  Ar- 
minians  have  sometimes  argued  that  the  one  necessarily  implies 
the  latter  ;  because  a  moral  tertuim  qtiid  is  inconceivable  ;  there 
is  no  place  between  heaven  and  hell  to  which  this  person,  guilt- 
less and  yet  not  righteous,  could  be  consigned.  We  reply,  the 
two  elements  are  indeed  practically  inseparable  ;  but  yet  they 
are  distinguishable.  And,  while  there  can  be  no  moral  neu- 
trality, yet,  in  the  sense  of  this  argument,  guiltlessness  is  not 
equal  to  righteousness ;  e.  g.,  Adam,  the  moment  he  entered 
into  the  Covenant  of  Works,  was  guiltless,  (and  in  one  sense 
righteous).  God  could  not  justly  have  visited  him  with  inflic- 
tions, nor  taken  away  from  his  present  natural  happiness.  But 
did  Adam,  therefore,  have  a  title  to  that  assured  eternal  life,  in- 
cluding all  the  blessings  of  perseverance,  infallible  rectitude, 
and  sustaining  grace,  which  was  held  out  in  the  Covenant,  as 
the  reward  to  be  earned  by  obedience  ?  Surely  not.  Now  this 
is  what  the  sinner  needs  to  make  a  complete  justification — 
what  Christ  gives  therein.  The  Arminian's  error  is  betrayed  by 
another  of  his  own  positions.  He  insists  that  the  beHever's  faith 
is  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness  :  i.  e.,  as  a  putative  righteous- 
ness graciously  accepted  for  his  justification.  But  he  will  not 
deny  that  pardon  is  for  the  merit  of  Christ's  sacrifice.  For 
what  justification  then  is  this  imputation  of  faith  made  ?  His 
own  dogma  is  only  rescued  from  absurdity,  by  having  in  the 
mind  that  very  element  of  justification  which  he  denies  :  an 
acceptance  or  adoption  into  life  which  is  more  than  mere 
pardon. 

(c)  To   this  agree  the   Scriptures.     Zech.   iii  :  4,  5,  justifi- 
cation is  not  only   the    stripping  off  of  the 
up  ures.  filthy  garment,  but  the  putting  on  of  the  fair 

mitre  and  clean  robe.  Acts  xxvi  :  18,  faith  obtains  forgiveness 
of  sins,  and  inheritance  among  the  saints.  Rom.  v  :  1,2,  justifir 
cation  by  faith  brings  us  not  only  peace  with  God,  but  access 
to  a  state  of  grace,  and  joy  and  glory.  Gal.  iv  :  5,  Christ's 
coming  under  the  curse  for  us,  results  in  a  redemption,  which 
includes  adoption.  Jno.  i  :  12,  believingis  the  immediate  instru- 
ment of  adoption,  &c.,  &c. 

Second:  Those  who   admit  this  definition  of  justification, 

will,  of  course,  admit  that  the  righteousness 

dience Imput^!^'''^  °''^'  by  which  the  sinner  is  justifi^ed  must  include 

a  full  obedience  to  the  preceptive,  as  well  as 

the  penal  part  of  the  law.     And   as  that  righteousness,  (to  an- 

40* 


626  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ticipate  a  point  of  future  discussion)  is  Christ's,  hence,  the 
merit  of  His  obedience  to  the  precepts,  as  well  as ,  of  His 
atoning  sufferings,  must  be  imputed  to  us  for  justification.  [It 
is  common  for  theologians  to  say  :  "  both  His  active  and  pas- 
sive obedience"  are  imputed.  The  phrase  is  clumsy.  In  truth, 
Christ's  sufferings  contained  an  active  obedience ;  and  it  is  this 
which  made  them  a  righteousness :  for  mere  pain,  irrespective 
of  the  motive  of  voluntary  endurance,  is  not  meritorious.  And 
Christ's  obedience  to  precepts  was  accompanied  with  endu- 
rance.] 

(a)  All  the   arguments  then,  by  which  the  last  head  was 

supported,  also  go  to  prove  that  both  parts 
rgumen  s.  ^^    Christ's    righteousness    are    imputed    for 

justification,  (if  either  is).  He  undertook  to  stand  in  our  law- 
stead  ;  and  do  for  us,  what  the  Covenant  of  Works  demanded 
of  us  for  our  eternal  life.  We  have  seen  that  after  we  sinned, 
it  required  an  obedience  penal  and  preceptive. 

(b)  It  is  most  scriptural  to  suppose  that  all  Christ  did  as  a 
mediatorial  person,  was  for  us,  and  in  our  stead.  Did  Christ 
then,  obey  the  preceptive  law,  as  one  of  His  official  functions  ? 
The  answer  is,  there  was  no  other  reason  why  He  should  do  it 
— of  which  more  anon.     See  Matt,  iii  :  15  ;  v  :  17. 

(c)  In  many  places,  Christ's  bearing  the  preceptive  law  is 
clearly  implied  to  be  for  our  redemption.  See  for  instance,  Gal. 
iv  :  4.  By  what  fair  interpretration  can  it  be  shown  that  the 
law  under  which  He  was  made,  to  redeem  us,  included  nothing 
but  the  penal  threatenings  ?  "  To  redeem  us  who  were  under 
the  law."  Were  we  under  no  part  of  it  but  the  threats  ?  See, 
also,  Rom.  v  :  18,  19,  "By  the  obedience  of  Christ,  many  are 
made  righteous."  The  antithesis  and  whole  context  show  that 
obedience  to  precepts  is  meant.  Rom.  viii  :  3,  4.  What  the 
law  failed  to  do,  through  our  moral  impotency,  that  Christ  has 
done  for  us.  What  was  that  ?  Rather  our  obedience  than  our 
suffering.     See,  also,  Heb.  x  :  5-7. 

In  the   days   of  the  Reformation,  Andr.   Osiander  vitiated 

the  doctrine  of  justification  bv  urging,  that  if 

Osiander's  View.  ^^^^.^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^^^   ^   ^^^^^   obligation  to  keep 

the  preceptive  law,  (as  who  can  doubt?)  then  He  owed  all  the 
obedience  of  which  He  was  capable  on  His  own  account,  and 
therefore  could  not  render  it  as  our  surety.  Hence,  he  sup- 
posed that  the  righteousness  imputed  to  us  is  not  that  of  the 
God-man  on  earth,  but  the  inherent  or  natural  righteousness  of 
the  Deity.  The  Socinians  and  others  have  adopted  this  cavil, 
making  it  the  staple  of  one  of  their  objections  to  imputation. 
The  answer  is  threefold.  1st.  Christ  did,  indeed,  owe  complete 
oljedience  to  law,  after  assuming  His  vicarious  task.  But  for 
what  purpose  was  the  obligation  assumed  ?  For  what  purpose 
was  the  very  humanity  assumed,  by  which  He  came  under  the 
obligation?     To  redeem  man.     The  argument  is,  therefore,  as 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  62/ 

preposterous  as  though,  when  a  surety  comes  forward,  and 
gives  his  own  bond,  to  release  his  bankrupt  friend,  the  creditor 
should  refuse  to  cancel  the  bankrupt  man's  bond,  saying  to  the 
surety  :  "  Now,  you  owe  me  the  money  for  yourself,  for  I  hold 
your  bond!"  The  security  would  speedily  raise  the  question: 
"  What  was  the  value  received,  for  which  I,  who  otherwise  owed 
nothing,  gave  this  bond  ?  It  was  nothing  else  than  the  promised 
release  of  this  bankrupt's  bond."  Thus  every  lawyer  would 
scout  the  argument  of  the  Socinian,  as  profligate  trifling.  See 
Witsius,  bk.  ii  :  chap.  3,  §  14,  &c.  But  second  :  Christ,  as  God- 
man,  was  not  obliged  to  render  any  obedience  to  the  law,  to 
•secure  the  justification  of  His  own  mediatorial  person:  because 
He  was  personally  accepted  and  justified  from  the  beginning. 
See  Matt,  iii  :  17  ;  Heb.  i  :  6.  For  whom,  then,  was  this  obedi- 
ence rendered,  if  not  for  His  people  ?  And  third  :  The  obedi- 
ence, though  rendered  in  the  human  nature,  was  the  obedience 
of  the  divine  person.  That  person,  as  divine,  could  not  be  sub- 
ject, on  His  own  personal  behalf,  to  law,  being  the  sovereign. 
Hence,  it  must  be  vicarious  obedience,  and  being  of  infinite 
dignity,  is  sufficient  to  justify  not  one  believer  only,  but  all. 

Adoption  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  different  act  or  grace  from 

justification.  Turrettin  devotes  only  a  brief 
What?  separate  discussion   to   it,  and   introduces   it 

in  the  thesis  in  which  he  proves  that  justifi- 
cation is  both  pardon  and  acceptance.  Owen  says  that  adop- 
tion is  but  a  presentation  of  the  blessings  bestowed  in  justifica- 
tion in  new  phases  and  relations.  And  this  is  evidently  correct ; 
because  adoption  performs  the  same  act  for  us,  in  Bible  repre- 
sentations, which  justification  does  :  translates  us  from  under 
God's  curse  into  His  fatherly  favour.  Because  its  instrument 
is  the  same  :  faith.  Gal.  iii  :  26,  with  iv  :  6,  7  ;  Titus  iii  :  7 ;  Heb. 
xi :  7;  Jno.  i :  1 2.  And  because  the  meritorious  ground  of  adoption 
is  the  same  with  that  of  justification,  viz :  the  righteousness  of 
Christ.  See  Heb.  xi  :  7 ;  Eph.  i  :  6  ;  and  texts  above.  The 
chief  doctrinal  importance  of  this  idea  then  is,  that  we  have 
here,  the  strongest  proof  of  the  correctness  of  our  definition  of 
justification,  and  of  the  imputed  righteousness  upon  which  it  is 
based,  in  the  fact  that  it  is  both  a  pardon  and  an  adoption. 

The  representation  of  our  adoption  given  in  Scripture, 
with  its  glorious  privileges,  is  full  of  consoling  and  encouraging 
practical  instructions.  The  student  may  see  these  well  set 
forth  in  Dick's  73d  Lecture. 


LECTURE  LIJI 

JUSTIFICATION.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

6.  State  the  general  argument,  (against  Moralists,  Socinians,  Pelagians,  &c.,)  ta 
prove  that  works  cannot  justify 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xvi,   Qu.  2.     Owen,  chs.   lo,  14.     Dick,  Lects.  69,  70.     Hill, 
bk,  V,  ch.  2.     Dr.  A.  Alexander.  Tract. 

7.  How  then  reconcile  James  and  Paul,  Rom.,  chs.  3,  4  ;  and  James,  ch.  2  ? 
Owen,  ch.  20.     Turrettin,  Qu.  8.     Dick,  Lect.  71.     Watson's  Theol  Inst.,  ch. 

23.  §  4- 

8.  Refute  the  lower  Arminian  scheme  ;  that  Christ  only  purchased  for  us  a 
milder  law,  which  accepts  penitence  and  evangelical  obedience,  instead  of  perfect 
obedience. 

Owen,  ch.   11.     Dick,   Lect.  70.     Waston's  Theol.    Inst.,   as  above,  and  |  3 
Witsius,  bk.  i,  ch.  9. 

9.  State  and  refute  the  Wesleyan,  (or  higher  Arminian  theory),  that  faith  is  im- 
puted as  our  righteousness. 

Turrettin,    Qu.  7,  ^   I-14.     Owen,   ch.  3.     Dick,    Lect.    71.     Watson,    Theol. 
Inst.,  ch.  23,  ^  3.     Hodge,  Theol.  p,  iii,  ch.  17,  §  8. 

10.  Complete,  then,  the  argument  of  our  4th  question,  by  showing  what  is  the 
meritorious  ground  of  justification. 

See  Owen,  chs;  16,  17.     Turrettin,  Qu.  3,  g  11-21.     Hill,  Dick,  Alexander  as 
above.     Hodge,  as  above,  §  4. 

npHE  particular  phase    in    which  the  Romish   Church  foists- 
the  merit  of  works  into  justification,  has  been   considered 
6.  Justification  not    i"  discussing  its  nature.       But  now  that  we 
by  Works.    Evasions    approach   the    Subject    of  its   grounds,  it  is 
of  Scripture.  necessary  that  we  study  the  general  reasons 

for  the  exclusion  of  works,  in  more  comprehensive  views.  We 
find  the  Apostle,  Rom.  iii  :  20,  declaring:  "Therefore,  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law,  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  His  sight; 
for  by  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin." 

1.  To  this  agree  the  views  expressed  by  all  the  sacred 
writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  See  Ps.  cxxx  :  3,  4; 
Ixxi :  16;  cxliii  :  2;  Dan.  ix  :  18;  Job  xl :  4.  These  instances 
are  peculiarly  instructive,  as  showing  that  Paul  broaches  no  new 
doctrine  ;  and  especially  as  excluding  the  Romish  pretext,  that 
only  works  of  the  carnal  nature  are  excluded ;  because  the 
Psalmist  and  Job  are  the  very  men  who,  in  other  places,  make 
most  earnest  protestations  of  their  sincerity  and  piety.  Then 
our  Saviour  teaches  the  same  doctrine.  Luke  xvii  :  10;  xviii : 
14.  And  the  Epistles  likewise.  Rom.  iii  :  28  ;  iv  :  6  ;  xi  .  6  ; 
Gal.  iii  :  1 1 ;  Eph.  ii  :  8,  9,  &c.,  &c. 

2.  Justification  cannot  be  by  the  law,  "  because  b}'  the  law  is 

the  knowledge  of  sin."  That  law  which  has 
Convicts  "'^*^^  ^""^    already  condemned  cannot  be  the  means  of 

our  acquittal.  See  Eph.  ii  :  3.  The  battle  is 
already  hopelessly  lost,  the  die  cast,  and  cast  against  us  on  this 
628 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  629 

scheme.  If  it  is  to  be  retrieved,  some  other  method  must  be 
found  for  doing  it. 

3.  The  law  of  God  is  absolute  ;  as  the  transcript  of  God's 

moral  perfections,  and  the  rule  of  a  perfectly 
Because  the  Law  is    j^^j      q^j     ^^^j.^^    cannot  favour  any  sin,   it 
Absolute.  ■'  .  '  .  -^  ' 

requires  a   periect,  universal,   and  perpetual 

obedience  during  the  time  of  the  probation.  See  Matt,  xxii  : 
37,  38,  &c.;  James  ii :  10;  Gal.  iii:  10.  Every  precept  applicable 
to  our  condition  must  be  kept ;  they  must  be  kept  all  the  time ; 
and  must  all  be  always  kept  with  perfectly  proper  motives  or 
intentions  !  There  is  not  a  man  upon  the  earth  who,  when  his 
conscience  is  convinced  of  sin  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  enlight- 
ened to  apprehend  the  majesty  and  purity  of  his  Judge,  would 
be  willing  to  risk  his  acquittal  on  the  best  act  he  ever  performed 
in  his  life.     But  see  i  Jno.  iii :  20. 

4.  While  sincerely  good  works  are  an  all-important  part  of 
Because   our    Only    ^"-^^  salvation,  they  cannot  be  the   ground  of 

Works  Fruits  of  Justi-  our  justification,  because  they  are  a  result 
^'^^^'°"-  thereof.      It    is    by    coming    into  a  state  of 

favour  with  God,  that  we  acquire  from  His  grace  spiritual 
strength  to  do  anything  truly  good.  See  Jno.  xv  :  1-5  ;  Rom. 
V  :  1-2  ;  vi  :  3,  4,  6  ;  Gal.  ii  :  20.  All  other  works  which  man 
does  are  carnal,  selfish,  or  slavish,  and  wholly  unmeritorious 
before  a  perfect  God.  Hence,  it  is  preposterous  to  attribute 
to  our  works  any  procuring  influence  as  to  our  justification. 

Indeed,  the  exclusion  of  works  by  Paul  is  so  emphatic,  that 

there  must  be  some  evasion  adopted,  to  limit 
A  ^stle^s  Point   ^^^™    ^^^^  meaning  in  order  to  leave  a  loophole  for 

doubt.  Those  evasions  we  have  discussed  in 
detail.  We  would  remark  generally,  in  closing  this  topic,  that  the 
fair  way  to  judge  what  Paul  meant  by  "  works  of  law,"  is  to 
find  out  what  an  intelligent  Pharisee  (he  was  reared  one,  and 
was  now  debating  with  them),  would  mean  by  "  the  Law," 
when  named  without  qualification.  The  answer  is  plain,  the 
Torah,  the  whole  Law  of  the  Pentateuch,  moral,  civic  and  cer- 
emonial. And  this  law  was*conceived  of,  not  merely  as  a  set 
of  carnal  ordinances,  or  dry  forms,  but  as  a  rule  spiritually  holy 
and  good.  See  Ps.  xix  :  7 ;  i  :  2.  Nor  are  we  to  conceive  that 
the  intelligent  Jews  thought  of  an  obedience  to  this  law  merely 
unspiritual,  slavish  and  carnal.  They  comprehended  such  pre- 
cepts as  Deut.  vi  :  4,  5  ;  Ps.  Ii  :  6,  to  be  an  important  part  of  the 
Law  :  and  the  evidence  is,  in  such  passages  as  Mark  xii  :  28-33  > 
X  :  19,  20.  This  certainly  is  the  sense  in  which  St.  Paul 
employed  the  phrase,  "  works  of  the  law,"  when  he  excludes 
them  from  justification,  in  his  epistles.  See  Rom.  iii  :  20,  with 
vii  :  i-i  2  :  viii  :  3,  4 :  ix  :  3 1 ;  x  :  3. 

The  Scripture  which  has  been  supposed  to  offer  the  greatest 

..  difficulty  against    Paul's   view,   is    Jas.   ii  :  12 

J.James    u.12-2.    ^^  ^^^       q^^  ^^-^^   j^  ^^^  ^^  remarked,   for 


630  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

introduction  :  that  if  there  is  a  real  contradiction,  both  Epistles 
cannot  be  regarded  as  canonical ;  our  alternative  is  to  reject 
Paul  or  James,  or  else  to  show  their  difference  only  seeming. 
Further:  when  one  writer  treats  a  given  topic  formally 
and  professedly,  (as  Paul  obviously  does  justification  in  Rom.), 
and  another  only  incidentally,  it  is  out  of  all  reason  to  force  the 
seeming  sense  of  the  latter  on  the  former. 

It  is  well  remarked  by  Owen,  that  James'  scope  is  totally 
different  from  Paul's.  James'  is,  to  defend 
Tetl'ntlo^D'JLLt  justification  by  faith  from  an  Antinomian 
preversion.  (See  ver.  14.)  Paul  s  is,  to 
prove,  against  Legalists,  what  is  the  meritorious  ground  of  jus- 
tification. Rom.  i  :  17.  Again  :  the  faith  of  which  James 
speaks,  is  a  dead  faith  :  such  a  faith  as  Paul  himself  would 
judge  non-justifying  ;  that  of  which  Paul  speaks,  when  he  makes 
it  the  sole  instrument  of  justification,  is  a  living  faith,  infallibly 
productive  of  good  works.  See  Rom.  vi.  And  third  :  the  jus- 
tification of  which  James  speaks,  presents  a  different  phase  from 
Paul's,  namely  :  not  God's  secret  and  sovereign  judicial  act, 
transferring  the  sinner  from  a  state  of  condemnation  at  the 
time  of  his  conversion,  but  that  act  declaratively  manifested  at 
any  and  every  subsequent  time,  especially  at  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. That  this  is  James'  meaning,  is  argued  by  Owen  irre- 
fragably  from  vv.  21-23.  The  apostle  says,  Abraham's  justifica- 
tion by  works,  when  he  proposed  to  sacrifice  Isaac,  was  a  ful- 
filling of  that  Scripture,  (Gen.  XV  :  6),  which  says:  "  He  believed 
God,  and  it  was  imputed  to  him  for  righteousness."  For  that 
justification  by  faith  was  notoriously  some  thirty  years  before 
the  offering  of  Isaac.  The  latter  transaction  must  therefore  be 
the  fulfilling  of  the  former  stamement,  in  the  sense  that  Abra- 
ham's justification  was  then  not  originated,  but  evinced.  See 
close  of  ver.  23.  These  three  remarks  do  sufficiently  show, 
that  James  ought  not  to  be  held  as  contradicting  Paul,  when 
their  scope  and  use  of  terms  are  so  very  different. 

But  a  juster  view  of  the  matter  will  be  gained  by  connect- 
Work  Essential  as  ^^S  ^"^  view  of  James  ii  :  14-26,  with  the 
Sign  of  Justification,  other  passages,  where  a  similar,  seeming  dif- 
Worthless  as  Cause.  ference  is  presented — e,  g.,  Ps.  xv  :  i,  2  ; 
xxiv  :  3,  4 ;  Matt,  xxv  :  34,  35,  41,  42  ;  Jno.  xv  :  8,  14 ;  Acts 
X  :  35  ;  I  Jno.  iii  :  7.  The  amount  of  all  these  texts  is,  that  a 
just  life  is  the  test  of  a  justified  state  ;  and  the  general  remark 
is  obviously  true,  that  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  assert- 
ing that  the  former  is  the  procuring  cause  of  the  latter.  Fruit 
is  the  test  of  healthy  life  in  a  fruit  tree  :  not  therefore  the 
cause  of  that  life.  These  simple  ideas  go  far  to  explain  the 
seeming  contrariety  of  these  texts  to  former  citations.  But 
perhaps  the  application  of  such  an  explanation  to  Jas.  ii  :  14- 
26,  will  be  attended  in  the  student's  mind,  with  sdme  difficulty, 
just  here.     Are  we  dealing  fairly  with  the  text,  to  suppose  that 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  63 1 

James  does  indeed  use  the  word  justify,  a  word  of  meaning  so 
exact,  definite  and  thoroughly  estabhshed  in  Bible  usage,  in  a 
new  sense,  without  giving  us  any  notice  thereof?  The  exeget- 
ical  evidence  that  he  does,  is  well  stated  by  Owen,  (above).  And 
the  view  is  greatly  strengthened  by  observing  that  the  differ- 
ence of  meaning  is  in  fact  not  so  great.  What  is  the  transac- 
tion described,  for  instance,  in  Matt,  xxv  :  34,  35,  and  how  does 
it  differ  from  the  act  described  in  Rom.  iii  :  28  ?  The  latter 
describes  the  sinner's  justification  to  God  ;  the  former  the  sin- 
ner's justification  to  God's  intelligent  creatures,  (a  more  correct 
statement  than  Owen's,  that  it  describes  his  justification  by 
man).  Each  is  a  declaratory  and  forensic  act ;  but  the  one  is 
secret  as  yet  to  God  and  the  justified  soul ;  the  other  is  a  pro- 
clamation of  the  same  declaration  to  other  fellow-creatures. 
And  it  is  most  proper  that  the  latter  should  be  based  on  the 
personal  possession  of  a  righteous  character  :  in  order  that  the 
universe  may  see  and  applaud  the  correspondence  between 
God's  justifying  grace  and  His  sanctifying  grace;  and  thus  the 
divine  holiness  may  be  duly  magnified. 

A  scheme  of  justification  has  been  advanced  by  many  of 

the  lower  Arminians,  which  is,  in  its  practical 
Lower  the  Law.  results,  not  far  removed  from  the  Popish.     It 

represents  that  the  purpose  of  Christ's  work 
for  man  was  not  to  procure  a  righteousness  to  be  imputed  to 
any  individual  behevers  ;  but  to  offer  to  God  such  a  mediatorial 
work,  as  would  procure  for  believers  in  general  the  repeal  of 
the  old,  absolute  and  unbending  law  as  a  rule  of  justification, 
and  the  substitution  of  a  milder  law,  one  which  demands  only 
sincere  evangelical  obedience.  The  thing  then,  which  is  impu- 
ted for  the  sinner's  justification,  is  the  whole  merit  of  his  sin- 
cere faith,  humble  penitence,  and  strivings  to  do  his  duty, 
which  God  is  pleased,  for  Christ's  sake,  to  accept  in  lieu  of 
a  perfect  righteousness.  These  theologians  would  say,  with 
the  Romanists,  and  higher  Arminians,  that  our  "  faith  is 
accounted  as  our  righteousness ;  "  but  they  would  define 
justifying  faith  as  a  seminal  principle  of  good  works,  and 
inclusive  of  all  the  obedience  which  was  to  flow  from  it. 
The  point  of  inosculation  of  this,  and  the  Popish  theory, 
(determining  them  to  be  the  same  in  essential  character) 
is  here.  They  both  conceive  Christ  as  having  procured  for 
man  (in  general)  a  new  probation,  evangelical  indeed,  instead 
of  absolute  ;  but  in  which  the  sinner  still  has  his  own  proxi- 
mate merit  of  justification  to  work  out,  by  something  he  does. 
Whereas,  the  Bible  conception  is,  that  the  Second  Adam  per- 
fected, for  His  people,  the  line  of  probation  dropped  by  Adam, 
by  purchasing  for  them  a  title  to  eternal  life,  and  covering  also 
all  guilt  of  the  breaches  of  the  first  covenant.  The  student 
cannot  discriminate  these  two  conceptions  too  carefully.  The 
former  is  "another  gospel."     It  robs  us  of  the  very  essence  of 


632  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

a  salvation  by  grace.  It  violates  that  fundamental  principle 
laid  down  by  the  Apostle,  Rom.  xi  :  6  :  that  the  two  plans  of 
adoption  unto  life,  the  legal  and  gospel  plans,  cannot  be  com- 
bined. The  attempt  to  do  so  confounds  both.  In  one  word  : 
since  man's  will,  in  its  best  estate  is,  per  se,  fallible,  if  the  plan 
of  our  salvation  is  that  of  a  new  probation  by  obedience,  and 
if  God's  grace  in  regeneration  and  sanctification  is  only  syner- 
gistic, then  no  believer  is  ever  sure  of  his  redemption.  Our 
view  of  Christ's  substitution  under  the  Covenant  of  Paradise 
determines  our  view  of  justification.  Thus  :  Adam  by  nature 
was  righteous,  innocent  and  guiltless  ;  but  not  yet  adopted. 
The  first  covenant  was  given  him,  that  he  might  by  it  earn  his 
adoption  of  life,  his  elevation  from  the  state  of  a  (holy)  servant, 
to  that  of  a  son.  He  failed  in  the  undertaking,  and  fell,  with 
his  race,  into  the  state  of  an  enemy,  both  corrupted  and  guilty. 
The  second  Adam  steps  into  the  place  vacated  by  the  fall  of 
the  first,  takes  up  the  work  where  he  dropped  it ;  and,  while  He 
makes  expiation  for  the  guilt,  original  and  actual  pur- 
chases for  all  believers  a  perfect  title,  not  to  restoration  to 
that  mutable  state  from  which  Adam  fell,  but  to  that  state  of 
adoption,  to  which  he  had  aspired.  My  desire  is,  that  the  stu- 
dent adopt  this  view  as  the  touchstone  of  his  doctrine. 

I  would  remark,  at  the  outset,  that  it  comes  with  a  very 
poor  grace  from  these  men  to  object  to  the  imputation  of  ■ 
Christ's  righteousness  to  us,  because  it  was  not  literally  and 
personally  wrought  by  us.  It  seems  they  consider  that  it  is 
more  consistent  in  God  to  account  a  believer's  righteousness  to 
him  as  that  which  it  is  not,  thus  basing  his  justification  on  a 
falsehood,  than  to  account  the  legal  benefits  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness to  him  for  what  it  truly  is — i.  e.,  a  perfect  righteous- 
ness ! 

I  refer  here  to  the  favourite  cavil  against  imputation  ;  that 
it  dishonours  God,  by  representing  Him  as  basing  His  judgment 
on  a  legal  fiction.  But  I  retort  with  the  question  :  Which  is 
more  a  legal  fiction ;  the  Arminian  scheme,  which  makes  God 
adjudge  a  partial  righteousness  a  complete  one,  per  acceptilati- 
onem  ;  or  ours,  which  represents  Him  as  admitting  an  appropri- 
ate substitution,  by  which  a  perfect  righteousness  is  rendered 
in  the  sinner's  stead,  and  the  law  gloriously  satisfied  ?  There 
is,  in  fact,  no  legal  fiction  in  this  whatever ;  unless  men  mean 
to  denounce  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  substitution.  God's 
judgment  does  not  assert  the  perfect  righteousness  as  done  by 
the  believer  ;  w^iich  it  was  not ;  but  as  done  for  the  believer ; 
which  it  was.  I  explained  the  true  nature  of  "  satisfaction,"  by 
the  parable  of  the  landlord  ahd  his  bankrupt  tenant.  The 
bankrupt's  brother,  who  is  his  surety,  is  a  competent  and  faith- 
ful carpenter.  As  the  landlord  is  building  extensively,  the 
surety  proposes  to  pay  the  whole  debt  in  faithful  labour,  at  so 
much  per  diem,  the  fair  market  price  of  such  labour.     When 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  633 

that  labour  is  all  rendered,  where  is  the  legal  fiction  in  the  cred- 
itor's giving  receipt  in  full  ?  But  had  the  surety  proposed  that 
he  should  receive  receipt  in  full  for  some  half-worthless  script 
belonging  to  his  bankrupt  brother,  this  would  have  been  a  legal 
fiction  indeed  ! 

Against  this  form  of  the  Arminian  scheme,  I  present  the 
following : 

I.  The  source  and  basis  of  God's  moral  law  is  His  own 
moral  character ;  which  is  necessary  and 
urrngeablJaJG:!  immutable.  Supposing  creatures  to  exist 
there  are  certain  relations  between  them  and 
God,  which  cannot  be  other  than  they  are,  God  continuing 
what  He  is.  Among  these  must  obviously  be  the  essential 
moral  relations  of  the  law.  These  flow,  not  from  any  positive 
institution  of  God  alone,  but  also  from  the  very  relations  of 
creatures  and  the  attributes  of  God.  And  if  any  moral  rela- 
tions are  necessary,  the  requirement  of  a  universal  obedience 
is  clearly  so  ;  because  our  Saviour  represents  the  obligation  to 
love  God  with  all  the  mind,  soul,  heart,  and  strength,  and  our 
neighbor  as  ourself,  as  the  very  essence  of  that  law.  Hence, 
the  idea  that  God  can  substitute  an  imperfect  law  for  one  per- 
fect, is  a  derogation  to  His  perfection.  Either  the  former 
standard  required  more  than  was  right,  or  the  new  one  requires 
less  than  is  right ;  and  in  either  case  God  would  be  unright- 
eous. That  Christ  should  perform  all  His  work  as  an  induce- 
ment to  His  father  to  perpetrate  such  unrighteousness,  would  be 
derogatory  to  Him.  Hence,  we  find  that  He  expressly  repudi- 
ates such  a  design.  Matt,  v  :  17.  And  here  we  may  add,  that 
the  Bible  nowhere  indicates  such  a  relaxation  of  the  behever's 
law  of  living.  David,  a  justified  person,  represents  the  rule  by 
which  he  regulated  himself,  as  "  perfect,"  "  pure,"  and  "  right," 
and  "very  righteous."  Ps.  xix  :  7,  8  ;  cxix  :  140;  Jas.  i  :  25  ; 
ii  :  10.  Everywhere,  the  law  which  we  are  still  required  to 
obey,  is  the  same  law  which,  by  its  perfectness,  condemned  us. 
Practically,  the  allowance  of  an  imperfect  standard  of  obedi- 
ence would  be  ruinous ;  because  man  ever  falls  below  his 
standard. 

It  is  objected  again  :  God  has   changed    His   law,  substi- 
tuting certain  simpler  and  easier  precepts,  in 
Asserted    Changes        1  r      ij  •        u      „   <-•  ,„    a-U^  u,,^ 

of  Law  Explained.  pl^ce  of  old  ones  ;   as  m  abrogatmg_  the  bur- 

densome ritual  of  Moses,  and  giving  in  its 
place  the  easy  yoke  of  the  New  Testament  ceremonial.  We 
reply  :  those  were  only  positive,  not  eternal  and  natural  pre- 
cepts of  morality ;  the  obligation  to  keep  them  only  arose  from 
God's  command  to  do  so ;  and  hence,  when  the  command  was 
retracted,  there  was  no  longer  any  sin  in  their  omission.  To 
retract  such  commands  is  far  different  from  making  that  no 
longer  sin,  which  is  in  its  nature  sin.  Again,  it  has  been 
objected,  that  God's  permission  has  been  given,  in  some  cases, 


634  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

to  do  what,  without  such  permission,  would  have  been,  in  its- 
nature  sin  ;  as  when  Abraham  was  directed  to  slay  Isaac,  and 
and  Israel  the  Canaanites.  It  seems  to  me  surprising  that  these 
cases  should  be  advanced  with  any  confidence  in  this  argu- 
ment, or  that  they  should  be  supposed  by  any  to  prove  that 
the  intrinsic  relations  of  morality  are  alterable  by  God's 
mere  positive  precepts ;  or  that  so  acute  a  writer  as  Mansel,  in 
his  "  Limits  of  Religious  Thought,"  should  feel  occasion  to 
take  refuge  from  the  exigencies  of  the  case,  in  the  inability  of 
human  reason  to  conceive  the  infinite  and  absolute  Being  fully. 
The  truth  is,  that  in  those  cases  there  is  no  alteration  whatever 
of  any  principle  of  natural  morality,  by  which  God  has  ever 
regulated  Himself,  or  His  human  subjects.  It  always  has  been 
right  for  God  to  slay  any  of  His  rebel  creatures,  whom  He 
pleases ;  He  kills  some  thirty  millions  of  them  each  year,  by 
various  means.  And  whenever  God  appoints  man  to  slay  it  is- 
no  sin  for  him  to  do  so,  be  it  in  the  case  of  magistrates,  self- 
defence,  or  defensive  war.  So  that  God's  appointment  of  a 
man  to  take  a  given  life  renders  it  perfectly  moral  to  take  it. 
An  instance  of  such  an  appointment  is  therefore  no  instance  at 
all,  of  a  conversion  of  what  is  naturally  sinful  into  right.  As 
fairly  might  one  say,  that  when  the  master  tells  his  servants 
that  the  unauthorized  use  of  his  substance  is  theft,  and  after- 
wards directs  one  of  them  to  take  and  consume  some  fruit  of 
his  field,  he  has  undertaken  to  alter  the  fundamental  relations 
of  morality !  We  repeat :  there  is,  and  can  be  no  case,  in 
which  God  has  made  that  which  is  naturally  wrong  to  be  right. 

2.  Scripture   represents  the  Bible  saints  as  repudiating  all 

their  own  works,  even  while  they  protest 
thfSrfecrLaw.^^^""''    their  affectionate    sincerity    in    them.   _    See 

Job  xl  :  4,  &c.  Moreover,  their  consciences 
rebuke  them  for  every  shortcoming  from  perfect  love  and  holi- 
ness. Surely  that  which  cannot  justify  us  to  our  own  con- 
sciences, will  hardly  answer  with  God  !  We  appeal  to  each 
man's  conscience  :  when  it  is  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
does  not  it  bear  out  this  experience  of  Bible  saints  ? 

3.  By  such  a  scheme  of  justification  Christ's  work,  instead 

of  resulting  in  a  complete  harmonizing  of 
No^beM^agnifieT"''^    God's  absolute  holiness   and  perfect  Law,  in 

the  sinner's  acceptance,  would  leave  the  law 
forever  ruptured  and  dislocated.  We  are  taught  in  Scripture 
that  Christ  was  to  "  magnify  the  Law,  and  make  it  honourable  ;  " 
"  that  mercy  and  truth  were  to  meet  together,  and  righteous- 
ness and  peace  kiss  each  other  "  ;  that  He  "  came  not  to  destroy 
the  Law,  but  to  fulfill."  Now,  if  He  has  procured  the  abroga- 
tion of  that  perfect  law,  during  each  believer's  Christian  life, 
there  is  a  demand  of  the  law  which  remains  unmet ;  and  that 
forever.  The  doctrine  makes  a  piece  of  patchwork :  men  do 
not  sew  new  cloth  on  an  old  garment. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  635 

We  conclude  then,  that  the  two  methods  of  obtaining  an 
adoption  of  Hfe  cannot  be  compounded ;  that,  namely,  by  a  pro- 
bation of  works ;  and  that  by  gospel  grace.  The  adoption  of 
the  one  must  exclude  the  other.  This  conclusion  raises  at 
once  the  question  ;  Has  not  the  Covenant  of  Works,  then,  been 
abrogated?  To  this  many  of  the  Reformed  reply:  Yes:  and 
they  refer  us,  for  proof,  to  such  passages  as  Heb.  viii  :  13. 
Arminius  also  asserted  an  abrogation  of  the  legal  covenant 
with  Adam,  but  it  was  in  a  far  different  sense,  and  for  a  different 
scope  from  those  of  the  Reformed.  Hence  has  arisen  confusion 
and  intermingling  of  views,  which  calls  for  careful  disentangle- 
ment. Arminius  claims  that  the  legal  covenant  was  wholly 
abrogated  at  Adam's  fall ;  because  first,  the  promise  of  life 
through  that  covenant  was  then  revoked,  and  vhere  there  is  no 
compact  there  can  be  no  obligation  ;  because  second,  man 
could  not  be  justly  bound  to  obedience  in  a  state  of  orphanage 
where  God  neither  promised  nor  bestowed  the  gracious  help 
essential  to  enable  him  to  a  true  and  hearty  service ;  and 
because,  third  :  it  would  be  derogatory  to  God's  wisdom,  holi- 
ness and  majesty,  to  practice  such  a  farce  as  calling  the 
depraved  creature  to  a  service  of  holy  and  entire  love ;  the  only 
one  a  spiritual  God  can  condescend  to  accept.  The  use  which 
his  party  designed  to  make  of  their  conclusion,  was  this  :  In 
order  that  fallen  man  may  be  justly  brought  again  under  obli- 
gation to  obey,  the  law  of  a  new  covenant  must  be  enacted  for 
him,  to  which  his  impaired  powers  may  be  adequate,  and  the 
imposition  of  which  must  be  accompanied  by  the  enabling  helps 
of  common  grace.  Thus  he  sought  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
theory  of  justification  which  we  have  been  discussing  under  our 
eighth  head. 

Now,  the  Reformed  divines  of  Holland  easily  refuted  this 
kind  of  abrogation  of  the  legal  covenant  by  such  facts  as  these. 
Man's  obligation  to  obey  never  was  founded  merely  in  covenant 
between  him  and  his  Maker.  It  is  founded  immutably  in  the 
nature  of  God,  and  of  His  rational  creature,  and  in  their  natural 
relation  as  Master  and  servant.  The  covenant  only  added  a  re- 
inforcement to  that  original  obligation.  Supposing  the  cove- 
nant completely  abrogated,  the  original  bond  of  duty  would 
remain.  Second  :  The  inability  of  will,  into  which  the  race  has 
fallen,  is  self-induced,  and  is  itself  criminal.  Hence  it  does  not 
at  all  relieve  man  of  his  just  obligation.  Third  :  It  is  one  thing 
to  say,  it  would  be  derogatory  to  God  to  allow  Himself  to  be 
cheated  by  a  heartless  and  hostile  service  from  corrupt  man  ; 
but  wholly  another  thing  to  say,  as  Arminius  does,  that  man's 
criminal  and  voluntary  hostility  has  stripped  God  of  the  proper 
right  to  demand  of  him  the  hearty  and  loving  service  naturally 
due.  And  the  whole  argument  of  Arminius  is  shown  to  be  pre- 
posterous, by  this  result :  That  it  makes  the  sinner  gain  eman- 
cipation   from  righteous   obligation,  by  sinning.     There  is   no- 


<636  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

principle  of  law  clearer  than  this ;  that  no  man  is  entitled  to 
plead  his  own  wrong-doing.  Posit  the  conclusion  of  Arminius  ; 
and  it  will  be  only  necessary  for  every  creature  in  the  universe 
to  make  himself  vile,  in  order  to  strip  God  of  His- whole  right 
of  rule.  That  is,  the  servant's  wrong  may  dethrone  his  rightful 
Lord  !  Once  more :  "  where  there  is  no  law,  there  is  no  trans- 
gression." After  obligation  has  ceased,  of  course,  there  is  no 
more  sin  or  guilt,  and  ought  to  be  no  more  punishment.  Thus  we 
should  reach  this  amazing  result :  Only  let  the  creature  make 
Himself  wicked  enough  ;  and  God  will  no  longer  have  a  right 
to  punish  him  for  his  new  wickedness. 

The  abrogation  of  the  legal  covenant  in  that  sense, 
then,  is  absurd  and  unscriptural ;  and  the  student  is  placed  at 
the  proper  point  of  view  for  appreciating  the  arguments  by 
which  we  have  above  refuted  that  scheme  of  justification. 

To  what  extent,  then,  does  the  consistent  Reformed  thelo- 
gian  hold  the  old  covenant  to  be  abrogated  ?  The  answer  may 
be  given  by  a  series  of  propositions,  which  will  commend  them- 
selves to  belief  by  their  mere  statement.  The  Ruler's  claims 
to  obedience  are  not  abrogated  by  the  subjects'  falling  by  trans- 
gression, under  penal  relations  to  Him  :  So,  all  moralists  and 
jurists  hold,  of  all  governments.  God's  law  being  the  immuta- 
ble expression  of  His  own  perfections,  and  the  creature's  obli- 
gation to  obey  being  grounded  in  his  nature  and  relation  to 
God,  it  is  impossible  that  any  change  of  the  legal  status  under 
•  any  covenant  imaginable,  legal  or  gracious,  should  abrogate  the 
authority  of  the  law  as  a  rule  of  acting  for  us.  Third:  It  re- 
mains true,  under  all  dispensations,  that  the  "  wages  of  sin  is 
death."  Fourth  :  It  remains  forever  true,  that  a  perfect  obedi- 
ence is  requisite  to  purchase  eternal  life.  And  such  a  compli- 
ance is  rendered  to  the  covenant  of  works  for  our  justification, 
namely,  by  our  Surety.  Let  us  then  beware  how  we  speak  of 
the  covenant  of  works  as  in  every  sense  abrogated  ;  for  it  is 
under  that  very  covenant  that  the  second  Adam  has  acted,  in 
purchasing  our  redemption.  That  is  the  covenant  which  He 
actually  fulfills,  for  us.  Again,  it  is  that  covenant  under  which 
the  sinner  out  of  Christ  now  dies,  just  as  the  first  sinner  was 
condemned  under  it.  The  law  is  still  in  force,  then,  in  three  re- 
spects :  as  the  dispensation  under  which  our  Substitute  acts  for 
us  :  as  the  rule  of  our  own  obedience  ;  and  as  the  rule  by  which 
transgressors  dying  out  of  Christ  are  condemned.  Some,  even, 
of  the  Reformed,  have  been  so  incautious  as  to  conclude,  that 
by  the  rule  that  "  a  compact  broken  on  one  side,  is  broken  for 
both  sides,"  transgression  abrogates  the  legal  covenant  wholh', 
as  soon  as  it  is  committed.  One  plain  question  exposes  this : 
By  what  authority,  then,  does  the  Ruler  punish  the  transgressor 
after  the  law  is  broken?  If,  for  instance,  a  murder  abrogated 
the  legal  covenant  between  the  murderer  and  the  common- 
wealth, from  the  hour  it  was  committed,  I  presume  that  he  would 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  637* 

be  exceedingly  mystified  to  know  under  what  law  he  was  going 

to  be  hung  !     The  obvious  statement  is  this  :  The  transgression 

has    indeed    terminated  the   sinner's    right    to  the  sanction   of 

reward ;  but  it  has  not  terminated  his  obhgation  to  obey,  nor  to 

the  penal  sanction. 

This  last   remark  shows  us,  in   what  sense   the   covenant  of 

works  was  abrogated  when  Adam  fell — and  this  is  obviously  the 

sense  of  Paul.     The  proposal  of  life  by  the  law  is  at  an  end  for 

the  fallen  ;  they  have  forever  disabled  themselves  for  acquiring, 

under  that  law,   the   sanction  of  reward,  by  their  own  works. 

Hence,  God,  in  His  mercy,  withdraws  that  covenant  so  far  as  it 

is  a  dispensation  for  that  result;  and  He  substitutes  for  all  who 

are  in  Christ,  the  covenant  of  grace.     Compare  Gal.   v  :  3  ;  iii : 

10;  Matt,  v  :  18;  Rom.  vi  :  14,  15. 

The    Wesleyan    divines,    while    they   disclaim    and    argue 

against    the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
9.     Wesleyan  View.  ij-ji.i  t,  1  ■      j. 

^  '  ness,  also  discard   the    scheme  we  have  just 

considered.  They  say  that  faith  is  imputed  as  the  believer's 
justifying  righteousness.  Justification  is,  with  them,  simply 
pardon.  They  define  faith  properly  as  a  simply  receiv- 
ing and  resting  upon  Christ  for  salvation,  and  they  ear- 
nestly disclaim  the  Socinian  confusion  adopted  by  so  many 
of  the  Continental  Arminians,  which  includes  in  the  justify- 
ing power  of  faith  the  evangelical  obedience  of  which  it  is  oper- 
ative. If  asked  whether  Christ  has  not  made  satisfaction  for 
sin,  they  fully  assent,  and  they  say  in  many  forms,  that  pardon 
is  "  through  His  blood,"  "  in  His  name"  and  "  for  His  sake  alone." 
If  we  ask,  "  How  is  it  then,  that  an  act  whose  organic  virtue  in 
the  matter  of  our  justification  is  a  simple  receptivity,  an  act 
which  brings  nothing  to  satisfy  the  claims  of  law,  but  only 
receives,  can  be  accounted  to  us  as  a  substitute  for  a  whole  and 
complete  righteousness?  "  They  reply  that  this  is  the  gracious 
effect  of  Christ's  sacrifice  ;  this  is  what  His  precious  blood  pro- 
cures for  us ;  and  this  is  the  sense  in  which  pardon  is  of  free 
grace.  Thus  they  suppose  they  escape  the  "  absurdities  of 
imputation,"  and  still  exalt  the  absolute  freeness  of  Gospel 
redemption. 

In  this  view,  the   doctrine  is    open  to    all    the    objections 

,,    ,        ^    .  ,          urged  against  the  one  just  refuted  above,  and 
Makes  Faith    a     •     ^  °  r  r         -^  ..       /     j- 

^Yq,.]^  m     greater   force ;     for   it    represents    God  s 

imputation  as    a    most    glaring   violation    of 

truth,  in  accounting  not  the  imperfect  duties  of  a  Christian  hfe, 

but  one  imperfect  act  as  a  complete  obedience  !       And  while  it 

seems  to  repudiate  works,  and  establish  faith,  it  really  foists  in 

again  the  doctrine  of  human  merit  and  works  ;  for  faith  is  also 

an  act,  an  act  of  obedience  to   law.     (Jno.  vi :  29 ;    i  Jno.  iii : 

23),  and  if  rendered  as  a  matter  of  righteousness  before  God,  or, 

indeed,  for  anything    except  the. mere   instrument  of  accepting 

Christ,  it  is  a  work.     But  faith  and  work  should  be  opposed. 


■638  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Again  :  the  idea  that  faith  is  accounted  to  us  as  our  justi- 
fying  righteousness,  contradicts,  in  two  ways, 
ceives.  °  "  ^'  ^ "  that  nature  which  Scripture  attributes  to  it. 
It  is  said  in  many  places,  that  righteousness 
is  by  faith,  (Rom.  i:  17,  etc.,  etc).  Now,  then,  it  cannot  be 
identical  with  it.  Moreover,  faith  is  defined  as  an  act  purely 
receptive,  and  receptive  of  Christ  our  righteousness.  Jno.  i : 
12.  Now,.that  it  should  be  a  righteousness  when  its  very  nature 
is  to  embrace  a  righteousness,  is  as  contradictory,  as  that  the 
beggar's  confessions  of  destitution  can  constitute  a  price  to  pur- 
chase relief. 

And  last :  the  whole  question  is  decisively  settled  against 

_„    ^.  ,  ^        this  theory,   as  well  as   against    the   Popish, 

1  he  Righteousness  Im-  1        n        -1  r  ^  i  •    1  1         .1 

puted  is  God's.  ^^^    ^'^^    Other  talse  ones,    which    make  the 

procuring  cause  of  our  justification  to  be, 
-either  in  whole  or  in  part,  anything  wrought  by  us,  or  wrought 
in  us,  in  all  those  passages  which  declare  that  we  are  justi- 
fied on  account  of  God's  righteousness,  and  sometimes  it  is  God's 
righteousness  as  contrasted  with  ours.  See  Rom.  i :  17;  iii : 
22  ;  Phil,  iii :  9.  How  can  these  expressions  be  evaded?  The 
righteousness  by  which  we  are  justified  is  not  ours,  but  God's 
— therefore  not  constituted  of  any  acts  or  graces  of  ours. 

But,  says  the  Arminian,  it  is  vain  to  speculate  against  the 

„,   ,         „         ,     express  words  of  Scripture  ;  and  here  we  have 
Wesleyan  Proof-     ■.     r         ^-  ^  ^      -n. 

texts  Considered.  ^t,  lour  tmies  over.  Gen.  xv  :  6  ;  Rom.  iv.  ;  3, 

5,  22,  24.  We  reply  that  they  clearly  over- 
strain and  force  the  text.  It  is  true,  that  in  Gen.  xv :  6,  the 
■construction  is,  "  His  faith  was  accounted  righteousness  (no 
preposition).  •  Now,  suppose  that  in  the  other  three  cases  in  the 
New  Testament,  the  construction  were  even  as  difficult  as  they 
suppose  in  this  :  would  not  a  fair  criticism  say,  that  these  some- 
what peculiar  statements  should  not  be  strained  into  a  sense 
contradictory  to  the  current  of  plainer  expressions  elsewhere, 
which  always  say  we  obtain  righteousness  by  our  faith  !  And 
as  Calvin  well  argues,  on  Gen.  xv  :  6,  when  the  very  context 
clearly  shows  that  the  whole  amount  of  Abraham's  faith  in  this 
case  was  to  embrace  a  set  of  promises  tendered  to  him,  since 
it  did  not  bring  anything  on  its  own  part  to  the  transaction,  but 
merely  received  what  God  brought,  in  His  promise ;  the  sense 
must  not  and  cannot  be  strained  to  make  the  receptive  act  the 
meritorious  cause  of  the  bestowal  which  itself  merely  accepted. 
There  is  obviously  just  such  an  embracing  of  the  result  in  the 
instrument,  as  occurs  in  Jno.  xii :  50  ;  xvii :  3.  But  our  case  is 
far  stronger  than  even  this.  The  Septuagint  and  Paul,  an 
inspired  interpreter,  uniformely  give  the  sense,  -cazi::  Xoy^Zsrac 
e/c  or/M.coaow^v.  This  all  these  Arminian  interpreters,  with  a 
perverse  inattention  or  ignorance,  persist  in  translating  "  faith  is 
accounted  as  righteousness  ;  "  the  English  ones  being  probably 
misled  by  the  occasional  use   of  our    preposition,  "for"    in  the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  639 

sense  of  our  "as"  (e.  g.,  "  I  reckon  him  for  a  valuable  citizen)." 
But  the  Greek  preposition,  s.'C,  with  the  accusative,  rarely  carries 
that  sense.  See  one  instance,  Rom.  ix :  8  ;  and  its  obvious 
force  in  this  passage  is,  that  of  designed  results.  "  His  faith 
is  imputed  in  order  to  the  attaining  of  righteousness" — i.  e., 
Christ's.  This  gives  faith  its  proper  instrumental  office.  Com- 
pare Rom.  X  :  lO.  fliazs'JiTa:  src  (>ua'.oa-')vrv.  Consult  Harrison's 
Greek  Prep.,  and  cases,  p.  226.  Our  argument  for  the  Apos- 
tle's construction  is  greatly  strengthened  by  observing  that  the 
Hebrew  Syntax  (see  Nordheimer),  expressly  recognizes  the 
construction  of  a  noun  objective  after  a  verb,  to  express  this  very 
sense  of  intended  result. 

In  conclusion  of  this  head,  the    Scriptures    clearly  assign 

AULocutionsof  that  office,  on  the  whole,  to  faith.  This 
Scripture  Prove  Faith  appears,  first,  from  its  nature,  as  receptive  of 
Instrumental.  ^  promi.se.      The   matter  embraced  must  of 

course  be  contributed  by  the  promiser.  The  act  of  the  receiver 
is  not  procuring,  but  only  instrumental.  Second :  all  the  locu- 
tions in  which  faith  is  connected  with  justification  express  the 
instrumental  idea  by  their  fair  grammatical  force.  Thus,  the 
current  expressions  are  justified  -iaxzt  (Ablative),  ota  -iarsio:;, 
h.  mazeoK.  Never  once  are  we  said  to  be  justified  of«  .tj'ot^v/ 
the  construction  which  is  commonly  used  to  express  the  rela- 
tion of  Christ's  righteousness,  or  blood,  to  our  justification. 

We  have  now  passed  in  review  all  the  prominent  theories 

10.  Proof  of  the  which  deny  the  truth.  By  precluding  one. 
Doctrine  from  Scrip-  and  then  another,  we  have  shut  the  inquirer 
*"'"^-  up  to  the  Bible  doctrine,  that  the   sinner  is 

Justified  "  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us." 
The  remaining  affirmative  argument  for  this  proposition  is  there- 
fore very  short  and  simple  ;  it  will  consist  in  a  grouping 
together  of  the  Bible  statements  ;  so  classified  as  to  exhibit  the 
multitude  of  proof-texts  by  a  few  representatives  : 

1.  Our  justification  is  gratuitous.  Rom  iii  :  24  ;  Eph.  ii :  5  ; 
Tit.  iii  :  7. 

2.  Christ  is  our  Surety.  Heb.  vii  :  22  :  and  our  sins  are 
imputed  to  Him,  that  His  righteousness  may  be  imputed  to  us. 
Is.  liii  :  6  and  1 1  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  21  ;    i  Pet.  ii  :  24. 

3.  He  is  our  propitiation.     Rom.  iii  :  25  ;    i  Jno.  ii  :  2. 

4.  We  are  justified  through  Christ,  or  for  His  name,  or  His 
sake,  or  by  His  blood.  Acts  x  :  43  ;  xiii :  38,  39 ;  Eph.  i  :  7  : 
iv  :  32 ;   Rom.  v  :  9 ;    i  Jno.  ii  :  12. 

5.  Christ  is  called  "our  righteousness."  Jer.  xxxiii  :  6 ; 
I  Cor.  i  :  30 ;  Rom.  x  :  4. 

6.  We  are  justified  by  His  obedience,  or  righteousness. 
Rom.  V  :  18,  19. 

7.  The  righteousness  that  justifies  us  is  God's  and  Christ's, 
as  opposed  to  ours.     Rom.  i  :  17  ;  iii  :  22  ;   Phil,  iii  :  9. 

Let  the  student  weigh  these  and  such  like  texts,  and  he  will 


640  SYLLABUS    AND     NOTES 

see  accumulative  proof  of  the  proposition.  In  fine ;  no  other 
construction  of  the  facts  coheres  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
substitution.  Let  but  the  simple  ideas,  in  which  all  evangelical 
Christians  concur,  be  weighed;  that  Christ  acted  as  our  surety; 
that  His  mediatorial  actions  were  vicarious;  that  we  are  justified 
in  Him  and  for  their  sake ;  and  we  shall  see  that  the  doctrine 
of  our  catechism  is  the  fair  and  obvious  result.  What  do  men 
mean  by  a  substitute  or  vicar  ?  That  the  acts  which  he  does  as 
such  are  accounted,  as  to  their  legal  effect,  as  the  acts  of  his 
principal. 


LECTURE  LIV. 

JUSTIFICATION.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

11.  Define  and  prove  the    Imputation  of  Christ's    righteousness,   and   answer 
objections.     Compare  Adam's  case,  Rom.  v. 

See  Turrettin.  Loc.  xvi,  Qu.  3.  Owen  on  Justif.,  chs.  7,  8.  10.  Dick,  Lect. 
70.  Dr.  A.  Alexander,  Tract.  Dr.  Wm.  Cunningham.  Hist.  Theol.  ch.  21,  ^  3. 
Watson's  Theol,  Inst.,  ch.  23. 

12.  Is  Justification  a  single,  complete,   and  absolute  Act?     How  related  to  after 
sins,  and  to  the  general  Judgment  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  9,  10.  Owen,  ch.  6.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  2.  Knapp,  ^  113.  Dr. 
Cunningliam,  as  above,  §  90.     Tunettin,  Qu,  5. 

13.  Is  Faith  the  sole  instrumental  condition  of  Justification,  or  also  Repentance? 
Turrettin,  Qu.  7,  8.  Owen,  ch.  2,  3.  Breckinridge,  Theol.  Subjective,  bk.  i, 
ch.  4.     Thornwell's  Collected  Works,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  37-40.     Dick,  Lect.,  71. 

14.  How  are  Justification  and  Sanctification   distinguislaed  !     Are  they  insepar- 
able ?     W'hy  then  discriminate  ? 

Turrettin.  Loc.  xvii,  Qu.  i.     Dick,  Lect,  71.     Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  3. 

15.  What  the  proper  Place  and  Importance   of  Good  Works,  in  the  Believer's 
Salvation  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xvii.  Qu.  3.  Dick,  Lect.  71.  Hill,  as  above.  Knapp,  g 
116,  117. 

16.  *'  May    we   then   sin,    because   we    are    not   under   the  Law,    but    under 
Grace  ? " 

Dr.  Jno.  Witherspoon  on  Justification.  Southern  Review,  (edited  by  Bledsoe) 
Art.  I,  April,  1874.  Owen,  ch.  19.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xvii,  Qu.  i.  Dick,  Lect. 
72.     Watson,  ch.  23.  ^  3. 

/^UR  last  attempt  was  to  prove  that  the  meritorious  cause  of 
the  believer's  justification  is  the  righteousness  of  Christ. 
But    how   comes    it    that   this    righteousness 
mpu  a  ion.  avails  for  US,  or  that  its  justifying  efficacy  is 

made  ours  ?  The  answer  to  this  question  leads  us  to  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation.  The  Catechism  says  that  Christ's  righteous- 
ness is  imputed  to  us.  This  Latin  word,  to  reckon  or  account 
to  any  one,  is  sometimes  employed  in  the  English  Scriptures  as 
the  translation  of  ^Ii.'n.  ^^op^o/iac,  iXkoyiio,  and  correctly.     Of 

-    T 

the  former  we  have  instances  in  Gen.  xv  :  6;  xxxviii :  15;  2 
Sam.  xix  :  19  ;  of  the  next  in  Mark  xv  :  28  ;  Rom.  ii  :  26;  iv  :  5. 
&c.  ;  Gal.  iii :  6,  &c. ;  and  of  the  last,  in  Rom.  v  :  1 3  ;  Philem.  1 8. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  64I 

It  is  evident  that  sometimes  the  thing  imputed   is  what  is 

actually  done  by,  or  belonsfs    personally   to. 

Defined.        Owen,,  ^  4-V  -^.-i  j  \. 

Criticised.  ^^^^    person   to   whom   it  is  reckoned,  or  set 

over.  (This  is  what  Turrettin  calls  imputa- 
tion loosely  so  called).  Sometimes  the  thing  imputed  belonged 
to,  or  was  done  by  another,  as  in  Philem.  18  ;  Rom.  iv  :  6.  This 
is  the  imputation  which  takes  place  in  the  sinner's  justification. 
It  maybe  said,  without  affecting  excessive  subtlety  of  definition, 
that  by  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  we  only  mean  that 
Christ's  righteousness  is  so  accounted  to  the  sinner,  as  that  he 
receives  thereupon  the  legal  consequences  to  which  it  entitles. 
In  accordance  with  2  Cor.  v  :  21,  as  well  as  with  the  dictates  of 
sound  reason,  we  regard  it  as  the  exact  counterpart  of  the  im- 
putation of  our  sins  to  Christ.  Owen  does,  indeed,  deny  this  : 
asserting  that  the  latter  only  produced  a  temporary  change  in 
Christ's  legal  state,  and  that  He  was  able  speedily  to  extinguish 
the  claims  of  law  against  our  guilt,  and  return  to  His  glory  ; 
while  the  former  so  imputes  His  very  righteousness  as  to  make 
a  final  and  everlasting  change  in  our  legal  relations.  We  reply  : 
the  difference  is  not  in  the  kind  of  imputation,  but  in  the  per- 
sons. The  mediatorial  Person  was  so  divine  and  infinite,  that 
temporary  sufferings  and  obedience  met  and  extinguished  all 
the  legal  claims  upon  Him.  Again :  Owen  pleads  that  we 
must  suppose  Christ's  very  righteousness,  imputed  to  us,  in 
another  sense  than  our  sins  are  to  Him ;  because,  to  talk  of 
imputing  to  us  the  legal  consequences  of  His  righteousness, 
such  as  pardon,  &c.,  is  nonsensical,  pardon  being  the  result  of 
the  imputation.  But  would  not  the  same  reasoning  prove  as 
well,  that  not  only  our  guilt,  but  our  very  sinfulness  must  have 
been  imputed  to  Christ ;  because  it  is  nonsensical  to  talk  of 
imputing  condemnation  !  The  truth  is,  the  thing  set  over  to  our 
account,  in  the  former  case,  is  in  strictness  of  speech,  the  title 
to  the  consequences  of  pardon  and  acceptance,  founded  on 
Christ's  righteousness,  as  in  the  latter  case  it  was  the  guilt  of 
our  sins — i.  e.,  the  obligation  to  punishment  founded  on  our 
sinfulness.  All  are  agreed  that,  when  the  Bible  says,  "  the 
iniquity  of  us  all  was  laid  on  Christ,"  or  that  "  He  bare  our 
sins,"  or  "  was  made  sin  for  us,"  it  is  only  our  guilt  and  not  our 
moral  attribute  of  sinfulness  which  was  imputed.  So  it  seems 
to  me  far  more  reasonable  and  scriptural.to  suppose  that,  in  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  it  is  not  the  attribute  of 
righteousness  in  Christ  which  is  imputed,  but  that  which  is  the 
exact  counterpart  of  guilt  —  the  title  to  acquittal.  Owen,  in 
proceeding  to  argue  against  objections,  strongly  states  that  impu- 
tation does  not  make  the  sinner  personally  and  actually  right- 
eous with  Christ's  righteousness  as  a  quality.  We  should  like, 
then,  to  know  what  he  means,  when  saying  that  this  righteous- 
ness is  really  and  truly  imputed  to  us  in  a  more  literal  sense 
than  our  sins  were  to  Christ.  A  middle  ground  is  to  me  invisible. 
41* 


642  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

The  basis  on  which  this  imputation  proceeds,  is  our  union 

^    .       ^    ^     .^        to   Christ.     There  is,  first,  our  natural  union 
Basis    of     Tustifica-  i.-^    i.-  tt-  i_  r 

jion.  constituting   Him  a  member  01  our  race  ;  a 

man  as  truly  as  we  are  men.  But  this, 
though  an  essential  prerequisite,  is  not  by  itself  enough  ;  for  if 
so,  mere  humanity  would  constitute  every  sinner  a  sharer  in 
His  righteousness.  There  must  be  added  our  mystical  union, 
in  which  a  legal  and  spiritual  connection  are  established  by 
God's  sovereign  dispensation,  making  Him  our  legal  and  our 
spiritual  Head,     Thus  imputation  becomes  proper. 

When  we  attempt  to  prove  this  imputation,  we  are  met 
.  with  the  assertion,  by  Arminians  and  theo- 
ture?  ^  ^^^"  '^"^'  logians  of  the  New  England  School,  that 
there  is  no  instance  in  the  whole  Bible  of 
anything  imputed,  except  that  which  the  man  personally  does 
or  possesses  himself;  so  that  there  is  no  Scriptural  warrant  for 
this  idea  of  transference  of  righteousness  as  to  its  legal  con- 
sequences. We  point,  in  reply,  to  Philem.  18,  and  to  Rom. 
iv  :  6.  If  God  imputeth  to  a  man  righteousness  without  works, 
and  his  faith  cannot  literally  be  this  imputed  righteousness,  as 
we  have  abundantly  proved,  we  should  like  to  know  where  that 
imputed  righteousness  comes  from.  Certainly  it  cannot  come 
personally  from  the  sinner  who  is  without  works.  The  whole 
context  shows  that  it  is  Christ's.  But  how  sorry  an  artifice  is  it 
to  seize  on  the  circumstances  that  the  word  Xoyc^sad^at  happens 
not  to  be  immediately  connected  -with  Christ's  name  in  the  same 
sentence,  when  the  idea  is  set  forth  in  so  many  phrases  ?  More- 
over, as  Turrettin  remarks,  every  case  of  pardoned  guilt  is  a 
case  (see  2  Sam.  xix  :  19),  of  this  kind  of  imputation  :  for  some- 
thing is  reckoned  to  the  sinner  —  i.  e.,  legal  innocency,  or  title 
to  immunity,  which  is  not  personally  his  own. 

The  direct  arguments   for  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
„     ^    ^    ,  eousness  are:    1st.  The  counterpart  imputa- 

Proofs,  Farther.  , .  r  m,     ,        tt-  /ti  jut 

tion  01  our  guilt  to  Him.  (Proved  by  is. 
hii  :  5,  6,  12  ;  Heb.  ix  :  28 ;  i  Pet.  ii :  24,  &c).  For  the  princi- 
ples involved  are  so  obviously  the  same,  and  the  one  transaction 
so  obviously  the  procurer  of  the  other,  that  none  who  admit  a 
proper  imputation  of  human  guilt  to  Christ,  will  readily  deny 
an  imputation  of  His  righteousness  to  man.  Indeed  both  are 
conclusively  stated  in  2  Cor.  v  :  21.  The  old  Reformed  expo- 
sition of  this  important  passage,  by  some  of  our  divines,  was  to 
read,  "  Christ  was  made  a  sin-offering  for  us."  The  objection 
is:  that  by  this  view  no  counterpart  is  presented  in  the  counter- 
part proposition  :  "  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
Him."  It  is  obvious  that  St.  Paul  uses  the  abstract  for  the  con- 
crete. Christ  was  made  a  sinner  for  us,  that  we  might  be  made 
righteous  persons  in  Him.  The  senses  of  the  two  members  of 
the  parallelism  must  correspond.  There  is  no  other  tenable 
sense  than  this  obvious  one  —  that  our  guilt  (obligation  to  pen- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  643 

•alty)  was  imputed  to  Christ,  that  His  righteousness  (title  to 
reward)  might  be  imputed  to  us.  2d.  Christ  is  said  to  be  our 
righteousness.  Jer.  xxiii  :  6  ;  i  Cor.  i  :  30,  &c.,  expressions 
which  can  only  be  honestly  received,  by  admitting  the  idea  of 
imputation.  3d.  By  "  His  obedience  many  are  constituted 
righteous  ;  "  {xazaazadr^aoi^rac).  Here  is  imputation.  So  we 
might  go  through  most  of  the  passages  cited  to  prove  that  we 
are  justified  on  account  of  Christ's  righteousness,  and  show 
that  they  all  involve  the  idea  of  imputation.  Indeed,  how  else 
can  the  legal  consequences  of  His  righteousness  become  ours  ? 
To  see  the  force  of  all  these,  we  have  onlj^  to  remember  that  all 
who  deny  imputation,  also  deny  that  Christ's  righteousness  is 
the  sole  meritorious  giound,  thus  plainly  implying  that  the  latter 
necessarily  involves  the  former.  4th.  Imputation  of  Christ's 
righteousness  to  us  is  argued  by  Paul  in  Rom  v,  from  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  sin  to  us. 

Objections  have  been  strenuously  urged   against  this  doc- 

„, .     .         c  1    J     trine,  of  which  the  most  grave  is  that  it  encour- 
Obiections     bolved.  '    .  .  r    i-    •  --ni  •         -hi 

ages  licentiousness  01  living.  iiiis  will  be 
separatly  considered  under  §  xv.  It  has  again  been  urged  that 
it  is  impious,  in  representing  Christ  as  personally  the  worst 
Being  in  the  universe  as  bearing  all  the  sins  of  all  believers; 
and  false  to  fact,  in  representing  His  act  in  assuming  our  law 
place  as  the  act  which  drew  down  God's  wrath  on  Him ; 
whereas  it  was  an  act  of  lovely  benevolence,  according  to  the 
Calvinistic  view  of  it;  and  also  false,  as  representing  the  sinner 
as  personally  holy  at  the  very  time  his  contrition  avows  him 
to  be  vilest.  The  answer  is,  that  all  these  objections  mistake 
the  nature  of  imputation,  which  is  not  a  transfer  of  moral  char- 
acter, but  of  legal  relation.  And  Christ's  act  in  taking  our  law 
place  was  a  lovely  act.  In  strictness  of  speech,  it  was  not  this 
act  which  drew  down  His  Father's  wrath,  (but  His  love — Jno. 
x:  17),  but  the  guilt  so  assumed.  For  the  discussion  of  more 
subtile  objection,  that  guilt  must  be  as  untransferable  as  personal 
demerit,  because  it  is  the  consequence  of  demerit  alone, — see 
Lect.  xliv. 

The  important  principle  has  already  been  stated,   that  jus- 
tification must  be  as  complete  as  its  merito- 
Com"  jJ^"^*  rious  ground.     Since  faith  is  only  the  instru- 

ment of  its  reception,  the  comparative  weak- 
ness or  strength  of  faith  will  not  determine  any  degrees  of  justi- 
fication in  different  Christians.  Feeble  faith  which  is  living  truly 
leads  to  Christ,  and  Christ  is  our  righteousness  alone.  Our 
justifying  righteousness  is  in  Christ.  The  office  of  faith,  is 
simply  to  be  the  instrument  for  instituting  the  union  of  the 
believing  soul  to  Him  ;  so  that  it  may  "  receive  of  His  fullness 
grace  for  grace."  Suppose  in  men's  bodies  a  mortal  disease,  of 
which  the  perfect  cure  was  a  shock  of  electricity,  received  from 
some  exhaustless  "  receiver,"  by  contact.     One  man   discover- 


644-  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ing  his  mortal  taint,  but  yet  a  little  enfeebled,  rushes  to  the 
electrical  receiver  and  claps  his  hand  swiftly  upon  it,  with  all  the 
force  of  a  violent  blow.  He  receives  his  shock,  and  is  saved. 
Another,  almost  fainting,  can  only  creep  along  the  floor  with 
the  greatest  difficulty,  and  has  barely  strength  to  raise  his  lan- 
guid hand  and  lay  it  on  the  "receiver."  He  also  derives  the 
same  shock,  and  the  same  healing.  The  power  is  in  the  elec- 
tricity, not  in  the  impact  of  the  two  hands.  Hence,  also,  it  will 
follow  that  justification  is  an  instantaneous  act,  making  at  once 
a  complete  change  of  legal  condition.  See  Rom.  iii :  22  ;  Jno. 
iii :  36;  V  :  24;  Rom.  viii :  i,  32  and  34  ;  Col.  ii :  9,  10;  Heb.  x  :  14; 
Micah.  vii :  19  ;  Jer.  i :  20;  Ps.  ciii :  12,  &c.  And  this  legal  com- 
pleteness, it  is  too  evident  to  need  proof,  begins  when  the 
sinner  believes,  and  at  no  other  time. 

But  here  two  distinctions  must  be  taken — one  between  the 
completeness  of  title,  and    completeness    of 

But  Sense  and  Fruits    possession  as  to  the  benefits  of  our  iustifica- 
of  it  may  Grow.  J^  ..-■'.. 

tion;  the  other  between   our  justification  in 

God's  breast,  and  our  own  sense  and  consciousness  thereof. 
On  the  latter  distinction,  we  may  remark :  as  our  faith 
strengthens,  so  will  the  strength  of  our  apprehension  of  a  justi- 
fied state  grow  with  it.  The  former  also  may,  to  some  extent, 
be  affected  by  the  increase  of  our  faith.  God  may  make  that 
increase  the  occasion  of  manifesting  to  the  soul  larger  measures 
of  favour  and  grace.  But  the  soul  is  not  one  whit  more  God's 
accepted  child  then,  than  when  it  first  believed.  We  have  seen 
that  the  thing  which,  strictly  speaking,  is  imputed,  is  the  title 
to  all  the  legal  consequences  of  Christ's  righteousness — i.  e  , 
title  to  pardon  and  everlasting  adoption,  with  all  the  included 
graces.  Now,  the  acknowledged  and  legitimate  son  of  a  king 
is  a  prince,  though  an  infant.  His  status  and  inheritance  are 
royal,  and  sure  ;  though  he  be  for  a  time  under  tutors  and  gov- 
ernors, and  though  he  may  gradually  be  put  into  possession  of 
one  and  another,  of  his  privileges,  till  his  complete  majority. 
So  the  gradual  possession  of  the  benefits  of  justification  does 
not  imply  that  our  acquisition  of  the  title  is  gradual. 

These  views  may  assist  us  in  the   intricate   subject  of  the 

relation  which  justification  bears  to  the 
Re^SlWrS:"    b'^Iiever's  future  sins      On  the  one  hand  these 

things  are  evident ;  that  there  is  not  a  man 
on  the  earth  who  does  not  offend,  (Jas.  iii :  2),  that  sin  must 
always  be  sin  in  its  nature,  and  as  such,  abhorrent  to  God,  by 
whomsoever  comriiitted ;  and  even  more  abhorrent  in  a  believer, 
because  committed  against  greater  obligations  and  vows ;  and 
that  sins  committed  after  justification  need  expiation,  just  as 
truly  as  those  before.  On  the  other  hand,  the  proofs  above 
given  clearly  show,  that  the  justified  believer  does  not  pass 
again  under  condemnation  when  betrayed  into  sin.  Faith  is  the 
instrument  for  continuing,  as  it  was  for  originating  our  justified 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  645 

-state.  This  is  clear  from  Rom.  xi  :  20;  Heb.  x:  38,  as  well  as 
from  the  experience  of  all  believers,  who  universally  apply- 
afresh  to  Christ  for  cleansing,  when  their  consciences  are 
oppressed  with  new  sin.  In  strictness  of  speech,  a  man's  sin 
must  be  forgiven  after  it  is  committed.  Nothing  can  have  a 
relation  before  it  has  existence,  so  that  it  is  illogical  to  speak  of 
sin  as  pardoned  before  it  is  committed.  How,  then,  stands  the 
sinning  believer,  between  the  time  of  a  new  sin  and  his  new 
application  to  Christ's  cleansing  blood  ?  We  reply  :  Justifica- 
tion is  the  act  of  an  immutable  God,  determining  not  to  impute 
sin,  through  the  believer's  faith.  .This  faith,  though  not  rn 
instant  exercise  at  every  moment,  is  an  undying  principle  in  the 
believer's  heart,  being  rendered  indefectible  only  by  God's 
purpose  of  grace,  and  the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So. 
God  determines,  when  the  believer  sins,  not  to  impute  guilt  for 
Christ's  sake,  which  determination  also  implies  this  other,  to 
secure  in  the  believer's  heart,  the  unfailing  actings  of  faith  and  re- 
pentance, as  to  all  known  sin.  So  that  his  justification  from  future 
sins  is  not  so  much  a  pardoning  of  them  before  they  are  commit- 
ted, as  an  unfailing  provision  by  God  both  of  the  meritorious 
and  instrumental  causes  of  their  pardon,  as  they  are  committed. 
There  are  two  qualified  senses,  in  which  we  are  said  to  be 
justified  at  the  judgment-day.  See  Acts  iii : 
Ju?gS.rnt^d:}f ''  '°  ^9-21  ;  Matt,  xii :  36,  37.  Indeed,  a  forensic 
act  is  implied  somehow  in  the  very  hotion  of 
a  judgment-day.  First:  Then,  at  length,  the  benefits  of  the 
believer's  justification  in  Christ  will  be  fully  conferred,  and  he 
will,  by  the  resurrection,  be  put  into  possession  of  the  last  of 
them,  the  redemption  of  his  body.  Second :  There  will  be  a 
declaration  of  the  sentence  of  justification  passed  when  each 
believer  believed,  which  God  will  publish  to  His  assembled 
-creatures,  for  His  declarative  glory,  and  for  their  instruction. 
See  Malachi  iii:  17,  18.  This  last  declarative  justification  will 
be  grounded  on  believers'  works,  (Matt,  xxv),  and  not  on  their 
faith,  necessarily;  because  it  will  be  addressed  to  the  fellow- 
•creatures  of  the  saints,  who  cannot  read  the  heart,  and  can 
only  know  the  existence  of  faith  by  the  fruits. 

That    faith    alone    is    the    instrument    of   justification,    is 
^.,  ^,    ,        asserted   by  the    Catechism,   que.    t,t,.     The 
truxJ'en^.^        ^^  P^oof  is   two-fold :     First.  That   this  is   the 

only  act  of  the  soul  which,  in  its  character, 
is  receptive  of  Christ's  righteousness.  Repentance  and  other 
graces  are  essential,  and  have  their  all  important  relations  to 
other  parts  of  our  salvation  ;  but  faith  alone  is  the  embracing 
act,  and  this  alone  is  the  act  which  contributes  nothing,  which 
looks  wholly  out  of  self  for  its  object  and  its  efficacy,  and  thus 
is  compatible  with  a  righteousness  without  works.  Second. 
All  the  benefits  we  receive  in  Christ  are  suspended  on  our 
union  with  Him.     It  is  because  we  are  united,  and  when  we 


646  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

are  united  to  Him,  that  we  become  interested  in  His  blood  and 
righteousness,  and  in  His  sanctifying  Spirit.  But,  as  we  have 
seen,  faith  is  the  instrumental  bond  of  that  union.  Hence  it 
follows,  that  our  standards  are  right  in  saying  that  justifying 
righteousness  is  received  by  faith  alone.  Third.  It  is  said  in  so 
many  forms,  that  righteousness  is  by  faith ;  and,  especially  is 
this  said  most  frequently  where  the  technical  act  of  justifica- 
tion is  formally  discussed,  as  separated  from  the  other  parts  of 
our  salvation.  Then  there  are  passages  in  which  this  is  held  up 
singly,  in  answer  to  direct  inquiries,  as  the  sole  instrumental 
act ;  which  do  not  leave  us  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  any  other 
one  would  have  been  omitted,  if  there  had  been  one  ;  e.  g., 
Jno.  vi  :  29 ;  Acts  y^vi  :  31. 

Yet,  it  is  stienuously  objected  by  some,  (even  of  sound 
.      r^  divines),  that  in  many  places  repentance   is 

Connection  of  Repent-      _    1  r      i  -i-i    r  -^i  /  r 

ance  Explained.  Spoken  of,  along  With  faith,  as  a  term  of  gos- 

pel salvation,  and  in  some  cases,  even  to  the 
exclusion  of  faith.  Mark  i  :  15  ;  Luke  xiii  :  3  ;  Acts  xx  :  21  ; 
and  especially,  Acts  ii  :  38  ;  iii  :  19.  The  chief  force  is  in  the 
last  two.  As  to  the  previous  ones,  it  is  very  obvious  that  to 
make  repentance  necessary  to  salvation,  does  not  prove  that  it 
performs  this  particular  work  in  our  salvation,  the  instrumental 
acceptance  of  a  justifying  righteousness.  We  might  even  say 
that  repentance  is  a  necessary  condition  of  final  acceptance,, 
and  yet  not  make  it  the  instrument ;  for  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  perseverance  is  such  a  condition.  Heb.  x  :  38.  But  to 
make  it  the  instrument  is  absurd  ;  for  then  no  one  would  be 
justified  till  death.  But  it  may  be  urged,  in  Acts  ii  :  38,  and 
iii  :  19,  repentance  is  explicitly  proposed  as  in  order  to  remis- 
sion, which  is  an  element  of  justification  itself  We  reply: 
this  is  not  to  be  pressed  ;  for  thus  we  should  equally  prove, 
Acts  ii  :  38,  that  baptism  is  an  instrument  of  justification ;  and, 
Rom.  X  :  9,  10,  that  profession  is,  equally  with  living  faith,  an 
instrument  of  justification.  These  passages  are  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  our  affirmative  proof-texts,  by  remembering  that  repen- 
tance is  used  in  Scripture  much  more  comprehensively  than 
saving  faith.  It  is  the  whole  conversion  of  the  soul  to  God, 
the  general  acting  in  which  faith  is  implicitly  involved.  When 
the  Apostle  calls  for  repentance,  he  virtually  calls  for  faith  ;  for 
as  the  actings  of  faith  imply  a  penitent  frame,  so  the  exercise 
of  repentance  includes  faith.  It  is  therefore  proper,  that  when 
a  comprehensive  answer  is  demanded  to  the  question,  "  What 
must  we  do  ?  "  that  answer  should  be  generally,  "  Repent,"  and 
that  when  the  instrument  of  justification  is  inquired  after 
specially,  the  answer  should  be,  "  Believe." 

The  question  once  debated  :  whether  faith  or  good  works 

be  most  important  to  a  believer  ?  is  as  fool- 

jusUfy,  y^  Necessa.^!    '^h  as  though   one   should    debate,  whether 

roots  or  fruits  were  most  essential  to  a  fruit- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  647 

tree.  If  either  be  lacking,  there  is  no  fruit-tree  at  all.  Good 
works,  when  comprehensively  understood  for  all  holy  actings 
of  heart  and  hfe,  hold  the  place  of  supreme  importance  in  our 
redemption,  as  the  ulterior  end,  not  indeed  in  any  sense  the 
procuring  cause,  but  yet  the  grand  object  and  purpose.  And 
the  dignity  of  the  end  is,  in  one  sense,  higher  than  that  of  the 
means. 

The  final  cause  of  God,  or  ultimate  highest  end  in  His  view 
Because  they  most    ^^  .o"*"  justification,  is  His  Own  glory.     The 
Essential  to  God'sUlti-    chief  means  or  next  medium  thereto   is  our 
mate  End.  sanctification    and    good    works  ;    for'  God's 

nature  is  holy,  and  cannot  be  glorified  by  sin,  except  indirectly 
in  its  punishment.  If  we  look,  then,  at  His  immutable  will  and 
glory,  we  find  an  imperative  demand  for  holiness  and  works. 
If  we  look  next  at  the  interests  of  God's  kingdom  as  affected 
by  us,  we  find  an  equal  necessity  for  our  good  works  :  for  it  is 
sin  which  originates  all  mischief  and  danger,  and  disorder  to  the 
subjects  of  God's  government.  And  if  we  look,  third,  at  our 
own  personal  interests  and  well-being,  as  promoted  by  our 
redemption,  we  see  good  works  to  be  equally  essential ; 
because  to  be  sinful  is  to  be  miserable ;  and  true  holiness  alone 
is  true  happiness. 

Hence,  we  find  that  God  in  many  places  mentions  redemp- 
Because  all  the  Plan    tion  from  corruption,  rather  than  redemption 
of  Redemption  Incites    from  guilt,  as   His  prominent  object  in  the 
'^^^™*  Covenant  of  Grace.     See  Titus  ii  :  14  ;  Eph. 

i  :  4 ;  V  :  25-27  ;  i  Thess.  iv  :  3  ;  i  Jno.  iii :  8  ;  Matt,  i :  21.  And 
all  the  features  of  this  plan   of  redemption,  in  its  execution 

show  that  God's  prime  object  is  the  production  of  holiness 

yea,  of  hoHness  in  preference  to  present  happiness,  in  His  peo- 
ple. The  first  benefit  bestowed,  in  our  union  to  Christ,  is  a 
holy  heart.  The  most  constant  and  prominent  gifts,  ministered 
through  Christ,  are  those  of  sanctification  and  spiritual  strength 
to  do  good  works.  The  designs  of  God's  providence  cons- 
tantly postpone  the  believer's  comfort  to  his  sanctification  by 
the  means  of  afflictions.  When  the  question  is,  to  make  one 
of  God's  children  holier,  at  the  expense  of  his  present  happi- 
ness, God  never  hesitates.  Again,  the  whole  gospel  system  is 
so  constructed  as  to  be  not  merely  an  expedient  for  introducing 
justification,  but  a  system  of  moral  motives  for  producing  sanc- 
tification, and  that  of  wondrous  power.  Let  the  student  look 
up  its  elements.  And  last.  This  very  gospel  teems  with  most 
urgent  injunctions  on  behevers  already  justified  to  keep  this 
law,  in  all  its  original  strictness  and  spirituality.  See,  especi- 
ally. Matt.  V  :  17-20 ;  Gal.  v  :  13  ;  Rom.  vi  :  6 ;  vii  :  6 ;  Jno.  xiii: 
34;  I  Pet.  i  :  15,  16,  &c. 

The  law  is  no  longer  our  rule  of  justification,  but  it  is  still 
our  rule  of  living. 

We  have  reserved  to  the  close  the  discussion  of  the  objec- 


648  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

15.  Is  Justification  tioii,  that  this  doctrine  of  justification,  by 
by  Grace  Licentious  in  faith  on  Christ's  righteousness,  tends  to 
Tendency  ?  loosen  the  bonds  of  the  moral  law.     There 

are  two  parties  who  suggest  this  idea — the  legalists,  who  urge 
it  as  an  unavoidable  objection  to  our  doctrine  ;  and  the  Anti- 
nomians,  who  accept  it  as  a  just  consequence  of  the  doctrine. 
Both  classes  may  be  dealt  with  together,  except  as  to  one  point 
growing  out  of  the  assertion  that  Christ  fulfilled  the  preceptive, 
as  well  as  bore  the  penal  law  in  our  stead.  If  this  be  so,  says 
the  Antinomian,  how  can  God  exact  obedience  of  the  believer, 
as  an  essential  of  the  Christian  state,  without  committing  the 
unrighteousness  of  demanding  payment  of  the  same  debt 
twice  over  ?  I  reply,  that  it  is  not  a  pecuniary,  but  a  moral 
debt.  In  explaining  the  doctrine  of  substitution,  I  showed  that 
God's  acceptance  of  our  Surety's  work  in  our  room  was  wholly 
an  optional  and  gracious  act  with  Him,  because  Christ's  vica- 
rious work,  however  well  adapted  to  satisfy  the  law  in  oui 
stead,  did  not  necessarily  and  naturally  extinguish  the  claims 
of  the  law  on  us;  was  not  a  "  legal  tender,"  in  such  sense  that 
God  was  obliged  either  to  take  that,  or  lose  all  claims.  Novv% 
as  God's  accepting  the  substitutionary  righteousness  at  all  was 
an  act  of  mere  grace,  the  extent  to  which  He  shall  accept  it 
depends  on  His  mere  will.  And  it  can  release  us  no  farther 
than  He  graciously  pleases  to  allow.  Hence,  if  He  tells  us,  as 
He  does,  that  He  does  not  so  accept  it,  as  to  release  us  from 
the  law  as  a  rule  of  living,  there  is  no  injustice. 

We  preface  further,  that  the  objection  of  the  legalist  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  supposition,  that  if  the  motives  of  fear  and  self- 
interest  for  obeying  God  be  removed,  none  will  be  left.  But 
are  these  the  only  motives  ?     God  forbid. 

Indeed,  we  assert  that  the  plan  of  justification  by  faith 

^    ,     c     f-f,-        leaves  all  the    motives    of  self-interest   and 

°'        "  '    fear,  which  could   legitimately  and    usefully 

operate  on  a  soul  under  the  Covenant  of  Works,  in  full  force  ; 

and  adds  others,  of  vast  superiority.     Rom.  iii  :  31. 

The  motives  of  self-interest  and  fear  remain,  so  far  as  they 
properly  ought  to  operate  on  a  renewed  soul. 
Seff-lnterest  Remains!  (a)  While  "  eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God," 
the  measure  of  its  glories  is  our  works.  See 
Luke  xix  :  17-19  ;  Matt,  x  :  42  ;  2  Cor.  ix  :  6.  Here  is  a  mo- 
tive to  do  as  many  good  works  as  possible,  (b)  Work?  remain, 
although  deposed  from  the  meritorious  place  as  our  justifica- 
tion, of  supreme  importance  as  the  object  and  end.  Hence, 
(c)  they  are  the  only  adequate  test  of  a  justified  state,  as 
proved  above.  Thus,  the  conscience  of  the  backslider  should 
be  as  much  stimulated  by  the  necessity  of  having  them,  as 
though  they  were  to  be  his  righteousness.  It  is  as  important 
to  the  gratuitous  heir  of  an  inheritance  to  preserve  hi.-,  evidence 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  649 

of  title,  as  it  was  to  the  purchaser,  to  be  furnished  with  money 
enough  to  pay  for  the  estate. 

2.  The  gospel   shows  its  superior  efficiency  over  a  system 

of  legality,  in  producing  holy  living,  in  this 
ait      uri  es.  respect ;  that  its  instrument  in  justification  is 

a  living  faith.  A  dead  faith  does  not  justify.  Now,  it  is  the 
nature  of  a  justifying  faith  to  give  an  active  response  to  the 
vitalizing  energy  of  God's  truth.  It  is  granted  that  the  truth, 
which  is  the  immediate  object  of  its  actings  unto  justification, 
is  Christ's  redemption  ;  but  its  nature  ensures  that  it  shall  be 
vitally  sensitive  to  all  God's  truth,  as  fast  as  apprehended. 
Now,  the  precepts  are  as  really  divine  truth,  the  proper  object 
of  this  vital  action  of  a  living  faith,  as  the  promises.  Such  is 
the  teaching  of  our  Confession  in  that  instructive  passage,  ch. 
xiv,  §  2.  "  By  this  faith  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true  what- 
soever is  revealed  in  the  word,  for  the  authority  of  God  Himself 
speaking  therein,  and  acteth  differently,  upon  that  which  each 
passage  thereof  containeth  ;  yielding  obedience  to  the  com- 
mands, trembling  at  the  threatenings,  and  embracing  the  prom- 
ises of  God  for  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come.  But  the 
principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are  accepting,  receiving,  and  rest- 
ing upon  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctification,  and  eternal 
life,  by  virtue  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace."  The  soul  is  not 
made  alive  in  patches.  It  is  alive  all  over.  That  principle  of 
faith,  therefore,  which  actively  responds  to  the  promise,  responds 
just  so,  likewise,  to  the  precepts  :  especially  as  precepts  and 
promises  are  so  intertwined,  See  Ps.  xxxii  :  i,  2  ;  Rom.  viii :  i. 
(b).  The  gospel  is  efficient  in  producing  holy  living,  because 

it  gives  the  strongest  possible  picture  of  the 
Love.^^^      ppeas    o    ^^^  ^^  ^-^^^  ^^  God's  inflexible   requisition  of 

a  perfect  righteousness,  and  of  His  holiness, 
(c).  Above  all,  it  generates  a  noble,  pure  and  powerful  motive 
for  obedience,  love  begotten  by  God's  goodness  in  redemption. 
And  here,  the  peculiar  glory  of  the  gospel,  as  a  religion  for 
sinners,  appears.  I  believe  that  the  justified  believer  should 
have  motives  to  holy  living,  which  if  their  whole  just  force 
were  felt,  would  be  more  operative  than  those  which  Adam  in 
innocence  could  have  felt  under  the  Covenant  of  Works.  See 
above.  But  when  we  consider  that  man  is  no  longer  innocent, 
but  naturally  condemned  and  depraved,  under  wrath,  and  fun- 
damentally hostile  to  God,  we  see  that  a  Covenant  of  Works 
would  now  be,  for  him,  infinitely  inferior  in  its  sanctifying  influ- 
ences. For  the  only  obedience  it  could  evoke  from  such  a 
heart,  would  be  one  slavish,  selfish,  and  calculated  —  i.  e.,  no 
true  heart  obedience  at  all  —  but  a  mere  trafficking  with  God 
for  self-interest.  Now,  contrast  with  this  an  obedience  of  love, 
and  of  gratitude,  which  expects  to  purchase  nothing  thereby 
from  God,  because  all  is  already  given,  freely,  graciously  ;  and 
therefore  obeys  with  ingenuous  love  and  thankfulness.     How 


650  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

much  more  pleasing  to  God  !  And  last ;  Love  is  a  principle  of 
action  as  permanent  and  energetic,  as  it  is  pure.  Witness  even 
th-"  human  examples  of  it.  When  we  look  to  those  social 
affections,  which  have  retained  their  disinterestedness  (towards 
man)  through  the  corruptions  of  our  fall,  we  see  there  the  most 
influential,  as  well  as  the  purest  principles  of  human  action,  the 
springs  of  all  that  is  most  energetic,  and  persevering,  as  well  as 
most  generous. 

We  sometimes  hear  the  legalists,  of  various  schools,  say  : 
"A  correct  knowledge  of  human  nature  will 
erative!'  ^  °^  ^'  ^^^^^  "s,  that  if  the  principles  of  fear  and 
self-interest  are  removed  from  man's  religious 
obedience,  he  will  render  none  ;  for  these  are  the  main  springs 
of  human  action."  We  do  not  represent  the  gospel  scheme  as 
rejecting  the  legitimate  action  of  those  springs.  But  their  view 
of  human  nature  is  false ;  fear  and  self-interest  are  not  its  most 
energetic  principles.  Many  a  virtuous  son  and  daughter  render 
to  an  infirm  parent,  who  has  no  ability  or  will  to  punish,  and  no 
means  of  rewarding  save  with  his  blessing,  a  service  more 
devoted,  painful,  and  continued,  than  the  rod  ever  exacted  from 
a  slave.  Indeed,  slavery  itself  showed,  by  the  occasional 
instances  of  tyranny,  which  occurred,  that  fear  was  an  inade- 
quate principle  ;  the  rod  by  itself  never  secured  industry  and 
prosperity  on  a  plantation ;  but  the  best  examples  of  success 
were  always  those,  where  kindnesss  was  chiefly  relied  on,  (with 
a  just  and  firm  authority),  to  awaken  in  the  slaves  affection  and 
cheerful  devotion.  The  sick  husband  receives  from  his  wife, 
without  wages,  nursing  more  assiduous  than  any  hire  can  extort 
from  the  mercenary  professional  nurse.  And  above  all,  does 
the  infant,  helpless  to  reward  or  punish,  exact  from  the  mother's 
love  and  pity,  a  service  more  punctilious  and  toilsome,  than  was 
ever  rendered  to  an  eastern  sultan  by  the  slave  with  the  scime- 
tar  over  his  head  ? 

Suppose,  then,  that  the  all-powerful  Spirit  of  God,  employ- 
ing the  delightful  truths  of  gospel  grace  as  His  instrument, 
produces  in  believers  a  love  and  gratitude  as  genuine  as  these 
instinctive  affections,  and  more  sacred  and  strong,  as  directed 
towards  a  nobler  object  ;  has  He  not  here  a  spring  of  obedi- 
ence as  much  more  efficacious,  as  it  is  more  generous,  than  the 
legalists  ? 

"  Talk  they  of  morals  ?     O  Thou  bleeding  Love, 
The  great  morality  is  love  to  Thee  !  " 

When,  therefore,  these  heretics  object,  that  justification  by 
free  grace  will  have  licentious  results ;  God's  answer  is ;  that 
He  will  provide  against  that,  by  making  the  faith  which  justifies 
also  a  principle  of  life,  which  "  works  by  love." 


LECTURE  LV. 

REPENTANCE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  two  kinds  of  Repentance  in  Scripture;  and  distinguished  by  what  two 
terms  ?    Are  these  ever  used  interchangeably  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  15.  Sampson  on  Heb.  xii,  17.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  4,  ^  i. 
Calv.  Inst.  bk.  iii,  ch.  3.  Knapp,  ^  126.  Watson  Theol.  Inst.  ch.  24,  ^  i. 
Breckinridge,  Theol.  Subjective,  bk.  iii,  ch.  14. 

2.  What  do  divines  mean  by  legal ;  and  what  by  evangelical  Repentance  ?     Of 
what  must  we  repent  ? 

Ridgley,  Qu.  76.     Calvin  as  above. 

3.  Who  is  the  Author  of  Repentance  ;  and  does  it  precede  or  follow  Regenera- 
tion. 

Calvin,  as  above,     Ridgley,  Qu.  76.     Watson  as  above.     Knapp,  g  127,  128. 

4.  What   are  the   relations  of  Faith  and  Repentance  ;  and  which  is  prior  in  the 
order  of  Production  ? 

Calvin,  as  above,  §1,2.     Fuller  on  Sandeman,  Letter  5,     Watson  as  above. 

5.  Is  Repentance  Atoning  ? 

Calvin,  bk.  iii,  ch.  4.     Dick,  Lect.  70.     Knapp,  §  128.     Watson,  ch.  19. 

6.  What  are  the  "  fruits  meet  for  Repentance  ?  " 
Ridgley  and  Calvin,  as  above. 

T  "  REPENTANCE  unto  Life  is  an  evangelical  grace,  the 
•  doctrine  whereof  is  to  be  preached  by  every  minister  of 
the  gospel,  as  well  as  that  of  faith  in  Christ."  Conf.  xv,  i.  The 
brevity,  and  in  some  cases  neglect,  with  which  this  prominent 
subject  is  treated  by  many  systems,  is  surprising  and  repre- 
hensible. 

In  the  New  Testament  there  are  two  classes  of  words,  used 

^  ,  ..       ,^  for  two    exercises,    both    of  which,    in   the 

Definition  of  Terms,     -c      ^•  -i  •  11    j  <<  x.  >>  .< 

English  version  are  called  repentance,  re- 
pent." One  class  is  y.szafjiiAofia:  [itzaixchca,  the  other,  [JiSTavoicD 
litrdvoca.  The  one  means,  etymologically,  after  regret,  a  merely 
natural  feeling ;  the  other,  change  of  mind  after  conduct.  And 
the  two  classes  are  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  general, 
or,  as  I  would  assert,  universal  discrimination.  The  only 
alleged  cases  of  confusion  are  Matt,  xxi  :  32  ;  Luke  xvii  :  3,  4; 
Heb.  xii  ;  17.  In  the  first,  the  verb  is  tj.zzeiitA7id7jre  with  accurate 
and  proper  reference  to  the  relation  between  carnal  conviction 
and  sorrow,  and  turning  to  Christ,  as  a  preparation  for  the  result. 
Those  expositors  who  will  have  it  to  be  used  here  for  evangeli- 
cal repentance,  urge,  that  this  alone  is  vitally  connected  with 
saving  faith.  The  chief  priests  "  repented  not  that  they  might 
believe."  But  give  the  verb  its  ordinary  meaning  :  Christ 
charges  on  them  such  obduracy,  and  self-sufficiency,  that  they 
felt  not  even  that  carnal  sorrow,  which  is  the  preliminary  step 
towards  true  repentance,  faith,  and  conversion.  Thus,  so  far 
is  the  ordinary  sense  from  being  difficult  here,  it  adds  great 
force  to  our  Saviour's  meaning.     So  in  the  next  case.     Luke 

651 


•652  •  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

xvii  :  3,  4.  In  this  ixz-a.voia.  is  used  for  the  professed  repentance 
of  an  erring,  and  even  a  very  unstable  brother,  to  show  that  his 
profession,  so  long  as  it  is  not  absolutely  discredited  by  his  bad 
conduct,  is  to  be  taken  by  the  judgment  of  charity,  (i  Cor. 
xiii  :  7),  as  evidence  of  genuine.  Christian  sorrow,  so  far  as  to 
secure  forgiveness.  A  profession  of  mere  carnal  sorrow  would 
not  entitle  to  it.  In  the  third,  the  best  commentators  are 
agreed  that  Tb-ov  [xtravo'ta.^  refers  to  a  change  in  Isaac,  which 
the  historian  indicates,  must  have  been  (whatever  profane  Esau 
may  have  hoped)  Christian  conviction  of  and  sorrow  for  error  ; 
(otherwise  He  would  not  have  changed  His  prophecy).  Now, 
when  we  see  that  /jtsvai^oico  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  34, 
and  fievdvoca  24  t,imes=58,  and  nzxaixklojim  and  family  7  times, 
the  demarcation  made  by  the  sacred  writers  is  very  broad. 

See  this  distinction  carried  out  with  instructive  accuracy  in 
2  Cor.  vii  :  8-10,  (original).  In  verse  8th  the  Apostle  says  that 
he  had  regretted,  but  now  no  longer  regretted  [tj.zTeiJt-).6mv)  the 
writing  of  the  1st  Epistle.  He  is  too  accurate  to  speak  of 
repenting  the  peformance  of  a  duty,  though  painful.  Verse  9, 
Now  He  is  glad  that  the  Corinthians  sorrowed  unto  iierdiyoiav. 
See  how  accurately  he  distinguishes  sorrow  {/-'-^yj)  from  gracious 
repentance.  Verse  10  tells  us  that  gracious  sorrow  worketh 
"  repentance  unto  salvation,"  which  is  not  to  be  "  regretted  " 
[dntzauiAr^Toi^).  Paul  is  too  discriminating  to  intimate,  as  the 
English  version  does;  that  true  repentance  can  ever,  by  any 
possibility,  be  subject  of  repentance  —  No  :  folly  might  per- 
chance deem  it  subject  of  regret  ;  but,  to  repent  truly  of  true 
repentance,  would  be  a  contradiction  too  glaring  even  for  the 
sinner  to  entertain. 

In  the  Old  Testament  two  families  of  words  are  used  for 
those  acts  promiscuously  expressed  in  our  English  version  by 
repent;  ^^2^"  and  its  derivatives,  and  QriJ  with  its  deriva- 
tives. The  latter  is  used  to  express  both  regret  and  repentance 
proper,  (variously  translated  by  Sept.) ;  the  former  I  believe,  in 
its  theological  uses,  always  expresses  true  repentance.  * 

The  Latin  Vulgate  has  lent  us  a  mischievous  legacy,  in 
giving  us  the  word  "  repent  "  as  the  rendering  of  Merdvoecv. 
"  Repentance  "  is  from  pcenitet,  pcena  ;  and  that  from  the  Greek 
word  Tiotvq.  Its  English  progeny  is  seen  in  the  word  pain  ;  and 
its  original  idea  is  penalty.  See  the  use  of  iiocvq  ;  IpJiigenia  in 
Aulide,  for  expiatory  penalty.  No  wonder  the  Latin  Church, 
in  the  dark  ages,  slid  into  the  error  of  regarding  penance,  as  a 
satisfaction  for  the  guilt  of  sin ;  when  it  had  been  taught  to  call 
fitzdvotav  by  such  a  misnomer  as  poenitentia.  Lactantiiis,  (the 
most  elegant  in  his  Latinity,  of  the  Christian  fathers),  proposes 
to  render  it  by  Resipiscentia,  (from  nsapio).     "  Ideoque     GrcBci 


*Thus  Augustine  :  Pcenitentiam  nomen  habere  a  punitione,  nt  sit  quasi  ptmi- 
■tentia,  dum  ipsum  homo  punit  pcenitendo,  quod  male  admisit. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  653 

melms  et  significantius  p-E'dvonm  dicunt,  qiiam  nos  possuvius 
resipisccntiam  die  ere!' 

I  wish  that  the  Enghsh  tongue  had  enabled  our  version  to 
distinguish  the  two  exercises  uniformly  by  two  distinct  words. 

Mixaixklzui  is  the  natural  pain  consequent  on  sin,  arising  in 
the  carnal  mind,  either  with  or  without  the  common,  convincing 
influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  contains  three  elements,  fear 
and  dread  of  the  danger  incurred,  shame,  and  remorse  or  invol- 
untary self-condemnation  of  conscience  denouncing  the  sin. 
It  is  a  purely  selfish  emotion  ;  but  it  is  still  the  emotion  of  a 
moral  nature,  and  implies  a  conscience ;  though  compatible 
with  an  entire  preference  of  will  for  sin. 

For  nezdvoca,  (See  Shorter  Cat.,  qu.  d>y.  Conf.,  xv,  §  2). 
It  involves  the  two  elements  of  the  former;  but  it  includes 
chiefly  another ;  viz :  "  a  sight  and  sense  of  the  filthiness  and 
odiousness  of  his  sins,  as  contrary  to  the  holy  nature,  and 
righteous  law  of  God."  There  is  not  only  that  painful  sense 
of  wrong  doing  inflicted  by  conscience  on  the  sinner;  con- 
science, which  a  depraved  will,  although  fully  set  on  transgres- 
sion, cannot  corrupt  nor  wholly  silence.  But  there  is  the  pain 
arising  from  a  true  hatred  of  sin,  now  existing  in  the  will,  as  a 
moral  disposition  and  principle,  and  from  the  preference  for, 
and  love  of  conformity  to  God,  arising  out  of  a  thorough 
approval  of  and  complacency  in  His  moral  perfection.  Of 
course,  this  hatred  of  sinfulness  and  appetency  of  holiness,  are 
not  two  principles,  but  one,  expressing  its  spontaneous  nature  as 
to  two  opposite  objects — sin  and  righteousness.  And  last,  that 
view  of  the  odiousness  of  sin,  and  attractiveness  of  godliness, 
proceeds  chiefly  in  the  believer's  experiences,  from  the  Cross; 
from  the  exhibitions  of  mercy,  purity,  goodness,  and  hope  there 
made.  True  repentance  may  be  defined  as  the  moral  emotion 
and  act  of  the  regenerate  nature  towards  its  personal  sinfulness, 
and  towards  godliness,  especially  as  the  two  are  exhibited  in  the 
Cross. 

The  terms  Legal  and  Evangelical  Repentance  have  been 
used  by  divines  with  a  mischievous  uncer- 
anc'eWhat^?  ^P^"^"  tainty.  By  some,  legal  repentance  is  defined 
as  though  identical  with  fitzanklzia.  If  this 
were  really  the  distinction,  the  terms  would  be  unnecessary. 
Paul  gives  us  better  ones  in  2  Cor.  vii  :  10 :  The  "sorrow  of  the 
world,"  and  "and  godly  sorrow."  But  other  divines,  perceiv- 
ing a  truer  and  more  accurate  distinction  in  the  actings  of 
godly  sorrow  itself,  have  employed  the  phrases  in  a  useful 
sense.  These,  by  legal  repentance,  mean  a  genuine  sorrow  for 
sin,  including  both  fear  of  its  dangers,  and  conscience  of  its 
wrongness,  and  also  loathing  of  its  odiousness,  with  a  thorough 
justifying  and  approving  of  God's  holy  law ;  a  sorrow  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  wrought  by  Him  only  through  the 
instrumentality    of   the    convincing    Law,   and   unaccompanied 


654  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

with  conscious  hopes  of  mercy  in  Christ.  By  EvangeHcal 
Repentance  they  mean  that  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  which  is 
wrought  by  the  renewing  Spirit,  inchiding  the  above  actings, 
but  also,  and  chiefly,  the  tender  sorrow  combined  with  hopes  of 
mercy  proceeding  from  appropriating  faith,  when  the  believer 
"  looks  on  Him  whom  he  hath  pierced,"  and  sees  there  at  once 
a  blessed  way  of  deliverance,  and  a  new  illustration  of  God's 
love,  and  his  own  aggravated  vileness.  This,  in  a  word,  is  the 
repentance  of  the  Catechism,  Qu.  87, 

In  completing  our  view  of  the  nature  of  repentance,  the 

question  presents  itself:  Of  what  should  man 
Orig?narsin^^^^"'  °^   repent?       The    general   answer,    of    course, 

must  be  :  Of  all  sin.  Is  it  man's  duty,  then, 
to  repent  of  original  sin?  If  we  say,  no,  the  Arminian  will 
press  us  with  this  consequence  :  "  If  it  is  not  your  personal  duty 
to  repent  of  it,  you  imply  that  you  are  not  in  earnest  in  saying 
that  it  is  truly  and  properly  sin."  Yet,  how  can  a  man  feel 
personally  blameworthy  (an  essential  element  of  repentance)  for 
an  act  committed  by  another,  without  his  consent,  and  before 
he  was  born  !  We  reply  :  "  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  into 
which  man  fell,  consists  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the 
want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corruption  of  his  whole 
nature,  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin."  The  Christian 
will,  of  course,  regret  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  but  not 
repent  of  it.  But  of  the  corruption  of  nature,  of  the  concupis- 
cence and  inordinate  desire  of  our  hearts,  it  is  our  duty  to 
repent,  to  feel  blameworthy  for  them,  to  sorrow  for,  and  to 
strive  against  them,  just  as  of  actual  transgression;  for  this  is 
not  only  our  guilt,  (imputed),  but  our  proper  sin. 

Again,  Conf.,  xv :  §  5,  men  ought  not  only  to  repent  of  their 

sinfulness,  both  of  heart  and  life,  as  a  general 
Of  Particular  Sins,  quality,  but  also  of  particular  sins,  so  far  as 
they  are  known,  with  a  particular  repentance.  Repentance  is 
the  medium  of  sanctification,  and  sin  is  only  conquered  by  us 
in  detail.  There  is  no  other  way  for  a  finite  creature  to  fight 
the  good  fight  of  faith.  Hence,  it  is  obvious,  every  conscious, 
and  especially  every  known  recent  transgression  should  be  made 
the  subject  of  particular  repentance.  The  impenitent  man  can- 
not be  forgiven.  What,  then,  shall  we  answer  concerning  those 
unconscious  and  forgotten  transgressions  (probably  the  "  secret 
sins  "  of  Ps.  xix  :  12),  to  which  the  attention  and  recollection  of 
even  the  honest  penitent  never  advert,  in  consequence  of  the  lim- 
itation of  his  faculties  and  powers?  We  answer,  that  each  Chris- 
tian is  aware  of  his  guilt  of  these  forgotten  faults,  and  grieves 
over  the  general  fact  that  he  has  them.  And  this  general 
repentance  is  accepted  ;  so  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  blots 
them  out  of  God's  book  of  remembrance. 

After  this  definition  of  repentance,  it  need  hardly  be  added, 
that  it  is  not  only  an  act,  to  be  performed  at  the  beginning  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  655 

conversion,  and  then  to  be  dismissed  as  complete,  but  also  a 
life-long  work,  proceeding  from  an  abiding  temper  of  soul.  The 
saint  is  a  penitent,  until  he  reaches  heaven. 

If  we  confound  worldy  with  godly  sorrow,  or  if  we  take  a 
.  Pelagian  view  of  human  nature,  we  may 
of  New^Bkth!"'^^  ^^^^  indeed  ascribe  true  repentance  to  the  unaided 
workings  of  the  natural  heart.  But  if  repent- 
ance is  understood  as  above,  we  shall  see  that  while  it  is  a  duty 
for  man  to  exercise,  it  is  still  one  to  which  he  must  be  moved  by 
the  supernatural  grace  of  God.  Hence,  the  Scriptures  always 
represent  it  as  God's  gift  or  work.  See  New  Testament  first,  as 
plainest:  Actsv:  31:  xi:  18;  2  Tim.  ii :  25.  In  Old  Testa- 
ment: Ps.  Ixxx:  3,7,19;  Ixxxv:  4;  Jer.  xxxi:  18;  Ezek.  xi : 
19.  Nor  can  these  texts  be  evaded  by  saying,  that  God  is  the 
Author  of  repentance  only  mediately,  by  teaching  that  Gospel 
which  inculcates  and  prompts  repentance.  In  several  of  them,, 
those  who  are  already  possessed  of  the  Gospel  means,  pray  to 
God  to  work  repentance  in  them  ;  and  in  2  Tim.  ii :  25,  there  is 
a  "  peradventure  "  whether  God  will  give  a  heart  to  repent,  to 
those  to  whom  Timothy  was  to  give  the  light ;  showing  that  the 
grace  of  repentance  is  a  separate  and  divine  gift. 

But  let  any  one  look  at  the  Scriptural  definition  of  Repent- 
ance, and  he  will  be  convinced  that  none  but  a  regenerate  heart 
is  competent  to  the  exercise.  The  true  penitent  not  only  feels  the 
danger  of  his  sins,  and  the  involuntary  sting  of  a  conscience, 
which  he  would  disarm  if  he  could  ,but  an  ingenuous  sorrow  for 
the  sinfulness  of  his  sin,  and  a  sincere  desire  for  godliness. 
Can  any  one  feel  this  but  a  regenerate  soul?  Can  he  who  hates 
God  thus  grieve  for  having  wounded  His  holy  law;  can  he  who 
loves  sin  as  the  native  food  of  his  soul,  thus  loathe  it  for  its 
own  sake  !  No  one  feels  godly  sorrow,  but  he  who  is  passed 
from  death  unto  life. 

But  the  Arminians,  while  avowing  that  repentance  is  the 
»     .  .       ^^.     .         work    of  the    Holy    Ghost,    assert    that    it 

Arminian    Obiections      i.uiijj.i-'ir 

to  this.    Answer.  ^^^^   "^  held  to  begm  before    regeneration 

in  the  order  of  production,  as  they  also 
hold  concerning  faith  and  justification.  Their  reasons  are  two. 
First :  we  are  taught  (e.  g.,  Ps.  Ii  :  10),  to  pray  for  regeneration. 
But  prayer,  to  be  acceptable,  must  be  sincere ;  and  a  sincere 
request  for  a  holy  heart  implies,  or  presupposes,  repentance  for 
ungodliness.  And  second  :  repentance  must  be  presupposed  in 
faith,  because  to  fly  to  Christ  as  a  refuge  from  sin  presupposes 
a  sense  of  sin.  But  justification,  secured  by  faith,  must  precede 
regeneration ;  because  God  cannot  be  supposed  to  bestow  the 
beginning  of  communion  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  what  is  sub- 
stantially eternal  life,  on  a  rebel  before  he  is  reconciled  to  Him. 
Thus,  they  suppose  Rom.  vii,  to  describe  repentance;  Rom.  vii : 
24,  25,  the  dawnings  of  saving  faith;  Rom.  viii:  i,  first  clause, 
the  justification    consequent  thereon;  and  viii:   i,  last  clause, 


656  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  beginning  of  spiritual  life.  Now,  to  both  objections,  we 
reply  that  their  plausibility  is  chiefly  due  to  the  oversight  of 
this  fact,  that  the  priority  of  one  over  another  of  these  several 
steps,  is  only  one  of  production,  or  causation,  and  not  of  time. 
Practically,  every  one  who  is  regenerate  is  then,  in  principle, 
penitent,  and  believing,  and  justified.  And  since  all  parts  are 
of  God's  grace,  is  it  not  foolish  to  say  that  His  righteousness  or 
His  wrath  forbids  Him  to  bestow  this  before  that,  seeing  His 
grace  permits  neither  to  precede  in  time,  and  none  to  be  lack- 
ing? But  on  the  first  objection  we  remark,  farther,  if  we  must 
need  rationalize  about  it,  it  is  at  least  as  great  an  anomaly,  that 
a  man  should  feel  a  sincere  desire  for  godliness,  while  his  nature 
remained  prevalently  ungodly,  as  it  is  that  an  ungodly  pra}'er 
for  a  new  heart  should  be  answered  by  the  heart-searching  God. 
The  objection  derives  its  seeming  force  from  a  synergistic  the- 
ory of  regeneration.  But,  in  truth,  no  true  spiritual  desire  can 
exist  till  God  has  actually  renewed  the  will.  God  must  do  the 
work,  not  man.  And  God  must  savingly  begin  it,  unasked  by 
man.  This  is  sovereign  grace.  That  a  man  should  hold  this 
theory,  and  yet  pray  for  a  new  heart,  is  no  greater  paradox  than 
that  the  hope  our  sins  are  pardoned  should  encourage  us  to 
pray  for  pardon.  The  truth  is,  the  instincts  of  a  pre-existent 
spiritual  life  find  their  natural  expression  in  a  breathing  after 
spiritual  life.  To  the  second  objection  we  reply :  if  it  seems 
anomalous  that  God  should  anticipate  His  reconciliation  to  the 
condemned  sinner,  by  bestowing  that  gift  of  a  new  heart,  which 
virtually  constitutes  eternal  life,  it  would  be  equally  anomalous 
that  He  should  anticipate  the  bestowal  of  peace,  by  bestowing 
those  essential  gifts  of  faith  and  repentance,  to  which  eternal 
blessedness  is  inevitably  tied  by  the  Gospel.  Must  not  the 
Arminian,  just  as  much  as  the  Calvinist,  fall  back,  for  his  solu- 
tion of  these  difficulties,  upon  the  glorious  fact,  that  Christ  hath 
deserved  all  these  saving  gifts  for  His  people  ?  To  him  who 
believes  an  unconditional  election,  there  is  no  difficulty  here ; 
because  he  believes  that  these  saving  gifts  are  all  pledged  to  the 
believing  sinner,  not  only  before  he  fulfills  any  instrumental  con- 
ditions, but  before  he  is  born.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  it  all  to 
God  ;  because  all  is  of  grace. 

The  relations    of  faith    and  repentance  inter  se,  as    to  the 

order    of  production,    are    important    to    an 

4   Which  Precedes ;    understanding   of  conversion.       Both   these 

Faith  or  Repentance :  °  .  .  ,     1  ^ 

graces  are  the  exercises  01  a  regenerate  heart 

alone ;  they  presuppose  the  new  birth.  Now,  Calvin,  with  per- 
haps the  current  of  Calvinistic  divines,  says,  that  "repentance 
not  only  immediately  follows  faith,  but  is  produced  by  it." 
Again :  "  When  we  speak  of  faith  as  the  origin  of  repentance, 
we  dream  not  of  any  space  of  time  which  it  employs  in  produc- 
ing it ;  but  we  intend  to  signify  that  a  man  cannot  truly  devote 
himself  to  repentance,  unless  he  knows   himself  to  be  of  God." 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  657 

And  this,  he  adds,  only  becomes  known  by  appropriating  faith. 
The  view  usually  urged  is,  that  the  convicted  sinner  cannot 
exercise  that  tender  and  affectionate  sorrow  for  sin,  which 
involves  a  true  love  to  God,  until  he  entertains  some  hope  that 
God  loves  him,  in  Christ..  They  quote  such  passages  as  Ps. 
cxxx :  4;  I  Jno.  iv :  19.  Before  hope  of  mercy  dawns,  they 
argue  there  can  be  nothing  but  stubborn  remorse  and  despair, 
after  the  example  of  Jer.  xviii:  12,  Now  there  is  a  fair  sense  in 
which  all  this  is  true ;  and  that,  no  doubt,  the  sense  in  which  it 
commended  itself  to  the  minds  of  those  great  and  good  men. 
But  there  is  also  a  great  danger  of  holding  it  in  an  erro- 
neous and  mischievous  sense.  In  what  we  have  to  say,  guard- 
ing these  views,  let  us  premise  that  we  make  no  priority  of  time 
in  the  order  of  repentance  and  faith ;  and  no  gap  of  duration 
between  the  birth  of  the  one  or  the  other.  Either  implies  the 
other,  in  that  sense.  Nor  do  we  dream  of  the  existence  of  such 
a  thing  as  a  penitent  unbeliever,  nor  suppose  that  there  is  any 
other  means  of  producing  repentance  than  the  preaching  of  the 
gospel.  Repentance  can  exist  nowhere  except  where  God 
works  it.  In  rational  adults  He  works  it  only  by  means,  and 
that  means  is  the  gospel  revelation;  none  other.  Nor  do  we 
retract  one  word  of  what  we  said  as  to  the  prime  efficiency  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  cross,  and  of  the  hope,  gratitude,  love,  ten- 
derness, and  humiliation,  which  faith  draws  therefrom,  as  means 
for  cultivating  repentance.  But  in  our  view  it  is  erroneous  to 
represent  faith  as  existing  irrespective  of  penitence,  in  its  very 
first  acting,  and  as  begetting  penitence  through  the  medium  of 
hope.  On  the  contrary,  we  believe  that  the  very  first  acting  of 
faith  implies  some  repentance,  as  the  prompter  thereof.  True, 
the  two  twin  graces  ever  after  stimulate  each  other  recipro- 
cally ;  but  the  man  begins  to  believe  because  he  has  also  begun 
to  repent. 

The  reasons  are  :  first,  that  the  other  view  gives  a    degrad- 
..  ing  and  mercenary  character  to  repentance  ; 

as  though  the  sinner  selfishly  conditioned  his 
willingness  to  feel  aright  concerning  his  sin,  on  the  previous 
assurance  of  impunity.  It  is  as  though  the  condemned  felon 
should  say :  "  Let  me  go  free,  and  I  will  sincerely  avow  that  I 
have  done  very  wrong.  But  if  I  am  to  swing  for  it,  I  will  neither 
acknowledge  guilt,  nor  say,  "  God  bless  my  country."  Is  this 
ingenuous  repentance  ?  Is  this  the  experience  of  the  contrite 
heart?     No  ;  its  language  always  is:     (Ps.  h,  pt.  i,  v.  5  :) 

"  Sh-^-'ild  sudden  vengeance  seize  my  breath, 
I  must  pronounce  Thee  just  in  death  ; 
And  if  my  soul  is  sent  to  hell. 
Thy  righteous  law  approves  it  well." 

Second.  Godly  sorrow  for  sin  must  be  presupposed  or 
implied  in  the  first  actings  of  faith,  because  faith  embraces  Christ 
as  a  Saviour  from  sin.     See  Cat.,  que.  86,  last  clause  especially. 

42* 


658  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Surely  the  Scriptures  do  not  present  Christ  to  our  faith  only,  or 
even  mainly,  as  a  way  of  impunity.  See  Matt,  i:  21  ;  Acts  iii : 
26;  Titus  ii;  14.  As  we  have  pointed  out,  the  most  charac- 
teristic defect  of  a  dead  faith,  is,  that  it  would  quite  heartily 
embrace  Christ  as  God's  provision  for  immunity  in  sin:  but 
God  offers  Him  to  faith  for  a  very  different  purpose,  viz :  for 
restoration  to  holiness,  including  immunity  from  wrath  as  one 
of  the  secondary  consequences  thereof.  (Hence,  we  must 
demur  at  Owen's  declaration,  that  the  special  object  of  saving 
faith  is  only  Christ  in  His  priestly,  and  not  in  His  kingly  and 
prophetic  offices.)  But  now,  a  man  does  not  flee  from  an  evil, 
except  as  a  consequence  of  feeling  it  an  evil.  Hence,  there 
can  be  no  embracing  of  Christ  with  the  heart,  as  a  whole  pres- 
ent Saviour,  unless  sin  be  felt  to  be  in  itself  a  present  evil;  and 
there  be  a  genuine  desire  to  avoid  it  as  well  as  its  penalty. 
But  does  not  such  a  desire  imply  a  renewal  of  the  will  ?  This 
view  has  appeared  so  unavoidable  to  many  who  go  with  Calvin, 
that  they  have  admitted,  "  Legal  repentance  precedes,  but  Evan- 
gelical repentance  follows  faith  and  hope."  (See  above  pp. 
653,  654.)  But  does  not  such  a  legal  repentance  imply  the  new 
birth?  Does  any  man  thus  justify  and  revere  the  very  law 
which  condemns  him,  and  regard  the  Divine  character,  while 
devoid,  as  he  supposes,  of  hope  in  its  favour,  with  new  and 
adoring  approbation,  while  yet  his  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God?  Surely  not.  The  error  of  their  argument  is  in 
supposing  that  this  legal  repentance  was  the  exercise  of  an 
unrenewed  heart. 

Third  :  Some  passages  of  Scripture  imply  the  order  I  have 
assigned  ;  and  I  am  not  aware  of  any  which  contradict  it.  See 
Mark  i:  15;  Actsii:3g;  v:3i;  xx:2i;  2  Tim.  ii:  25,  especi- 
ally the  last. 

In  a  word.  Repentance  and  Faith  are  twin  graces,  both 
implicitly  contained  in  the  gift  of  the  new 
Grli^^  """^  '^'^'"  heart;  and  they  cannot  but  co-exist.  Repent- 
ance is  the  right  sense  and  volition  which  the 
renewed  heart  has  of  its  sin ;  faith  is  the  turning  of  that  heart 
from  its  sin  to  Christ.  Repentance  feels  the  disease,  faith 
embraces  the  remedy.  But  when  we  inquire  for  the  first  con- 
^  scious  acting  of  faith  or  repentance  after  the  instant  of  the  new 
birth,  the  result  is  decided  by  the  object  to  which  the  soul  hap- 
pens to  be  first  directed.  If  the  object  of  its  first  regenerate 
look  be  its  own  ungodliness,  the  first  conscious  exercise  will 
be  one  of  repentance;  but  just  so  surely  as  the  volition  is, 
potentially,  in  the  preponderating  motive,  so  surely  does  that 
soul  look  from  its  ungodliness  to  Christ,  the  remedy  of  it;  it 
may  be  unconsciously  at  first,  but  in  due  time,  consciously. 
Or  if  Christ  be  the  first  object  to  which  the  new-born  soul  looks, 
its  first  act  may  be  one  of  trust  and  joy  in  Him.    Yet  that  trust 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  659 

implies  a  sense  of  the  evil  of  sin,  as  the  thing  for  deliverance 
from  which  Christ  is  trusted. 

The  exercise  of  repentance,  while  absolutely   necessary  in 

all  who  are  saved,    creates  no  atoning  merit ; 

5.   Repentance   not    ^^^  constitutes  no  ground  whatever  in  justice, 

why    the  penitent  should  have  remission  of 

his  sins.     See  Conf,,  xv  :  3.    The  carnal  mind  here  labours  under 

an  obstinate  delusion ;  and  how  often  are  pastors  told,  even  by 

those  who  desire  to  profess  themselves   Christians,  "  That  they 

hope  their  sins   are  pardoned,  because  they  have  repented  ?" 

Hence,  importance. 

A  moral  fitness  which  demands  that  no  impenitent  person 
shall    be    pardoned,     is    here   mistaken  for 
rgumen .  another   thing.      Now,  the    ground    of  that 

moral  fitness  is  this  :  that,  pardon  having  otherwise  been  made 
just,  God's  holiness  and  majesty  may  have  some  practical 
assurance,  in  the  state  of  the  sinner's  own  feelings,  against  his 
repetition  of  his  sins.  But  this  end  does  not  express  the  whole 
intent  of  God's  law ;  if  it  did,  the  law  would  be  a  mere  expedi- 
ency, unworthy  of  God.  Its  true  object  is,  to  express  and  sus- 
tain His  immutable  hohness.  It  demands  perfect  and  perpetual 
obedience.     Repentance  is  not  obedience.     This  leads. 

Second,  to  the  remark,  that  repentance  is  no  reparation 
whatever  for  past  disobedience.  It  cannot  place  the  sinner,  in 
the  eye  of  the  law,  in  the  position  of  Him  who  has  never  sinned. 
It  has  in  itself  no  relevancy  to  repairing  the  mischiefs  the  sin 
has  inflicted.  Thus  men  judge.  To  the  man  who  had  injured 
you,  you  would  say :  Your  repentance  is  very  proper ;  but  it 
cannot  recall  the  past,  or  undo  that  which  is  done. 

Third :  Indeed,  what  is  a  repentance  but  a  feeling  of  ill- 
desert,  and  consequent  guilt?  Confession  is  its  language. 
Now,  can  a  man  pay  a  just  debt  by  his  acknowledgments  of 
its  justice?  It  is  a  contradiction,  which  would  lead  us  to  this 
absurdity ;  that  the  more  thoroughly  unworthy  a  man  felt,  the 
more  worthy  he  would  thereby  become. 

Fourth  :  Repentance  after  transgression  is  a  work.  Acts 
xvii:  30.  So  that  justification  by  repentance  would  be  a  justi- 
fication by  works;  and  all  the  principles  of  Luke  xvii:  10; 
Rom.  iii :  28,  apply  to  it. 

But  last :  Repentance  is  as  much  a  gift  of  God  (Acts  v  :  31), 
as  the  remission  which  it  is  supposed  to  purchase.  This  settles 
the  matter.  While,  therefore,  the  impenitent  cannot  be  justi- 
fied, yet  the  sole  ground  of  justification  is  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  us,  and  received  by  faith  alone. 

The  Scriptures  command  us  to  "bring  forth  fruits   meet 
for  repentance."      These  fruits  will,  in  gen- 

R^'  mance  ^^^^  ^°^    ^^^^'  ^'^^^"'^^  ^^^  ^0^7  living;  for  repentance 

*^*"  ^     '  is  a  "  turning  unto  God  from  sin,   with  full 

purpose  of,  and  endeavour  after,  new  obedience."      But  there 


660  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

are  certain  acts  which  are  essentially  dictated  by  repentance 
and  which  proceed  immediately  from  the  attitude  of  penitence. 

1.  Sincere  penitence  must  lead  to  confession.  "Out 
of  the  abundance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh."  See  Prov. 
xxviii :  13.  The  highest  form  of  this  duty  is  the  confession  of 
all  our  sins  to  God,  in  secret  prayer.  True  repentance  will 
always  thus  utter  itself  to  Him.  Then,  if  our  sins  have  scan- 
dalized the  Church,  we  must  also  make  public  confession  of  the 
particular  sins  which  have  produced  this  result.  Again,  if  our 
sin  is  immediately  aimed  at  our  fellow-man,  and  know'n  to  him, 
repentance  must  lead  to  confession  to  him. 

2.  The  next  consequence  of  repentance  will  be,  to  prompt 
us  to  make  reparation  of  our  sin,  wherever  it  is  practicable.  He 
who  truly  repents,  wishes  his  sin  undone.  But  if  he  truly 
wishes  it  undone,  he  wall,  of  course,  undo  it  if  in  his  power. 

3.  The  next  fruit  of  repentance  must  be  holy  watchful- 
ness against  its  recurrence.  This  is  too  obvious  to  need  proof 
See  2  Cor.  vii  :ii,  as  admirably  expounded  by  Calvin,  Insti- 
tutes, Bk.  3,  ch.  3,  §  15. 

The  worthless  distinction  of  Rome  between  attrition  and 
contrition,  and  the  assigning  of  a  religious  value  to  the  for- 
mer, are  sufficiently  refuted  by  what  precedes.  Nor  does  the 
duty  of  auricular  confession,  so  called,  find  any  Scriptural  sup- 
port plausible  enough  to  demand  discussion.  As  to  her*  ascet- 
ical  exercises  of  penitence,  they  are  the  inventions  of  fanaticism 
and  spiritual  pride.  The  mortification  which  Scripture  enjoins, 
is  that  of  the  sins,  and  not  of  the  unreasoning  members. 


LECTURE  LVI 

SANCTIFICATION  AND  GOOD  WORKS. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  State  the  usages  and  meanings  of  original  words  rendered  "  sanctify,"  and  the 
nature  and  extent  of  sanctification. 

Shorter  Cat.,  Qu.  35.     Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  13,  16.     Lexicons.     Turrettin,  Loc. 
xvii,  ch.  I.     Hodge,  Theol.,  pt.  iii,  ch.  i8,  ^  I,  2,  3.     Dick,  Lect.  74. 

2.  How  is  sanctification  distinguished  from,  and  how  related  to  justification  and 
regeneration  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  i,  g  9  to  end.     Dick  as  above.     Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  4,  §  2.     Knapp, 
g  116,  126.     Ridgicy,  Qu.  78. 

3.  Who  is  the  Agent,  and  what  the  means  of  sanctification? 
Dick,  Lect.  75.     Ridgley.  Qu.  75. 

4.  Is  sanctification  ever  perfect  in  this  life  ?     Consider  views  of  Pelagians,  Socin- 
ians,  Wesleyans  and  recent  advocates  of  "  Higher  Life." 

Turrettin  as  above,  Qu.  2.     Hodge,  Theol.  as  above,  |  7,  8.     Dick.  Lect.  74. 
Hill,  bk.  V,  ch.  4,  §  3.     Ridgley,  Qu.  78.     Watson's  Theo.  Inst.,  ch.  29. 

TN  discussing  this  subject,  we  turn  again  to  Scripture  to  settle 
the  meaning  of  the  word.     In  the  Old  Testament  we  find 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  66 1 

the  word  ti^'TD  used  in  the  piel  and  hiphil,  to 
I.  Sanctify.     Defi-  -It  ^  ^ 

nition  of.  express  sanctification.     In  its  lowest  sense,  it 

seems  to  mean  simply  separation  to  a  partic- 
ular purpose,  and  that  purpose  not  sacred,  as  Jer.  xxii  :  7. 
More  frequently  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  consecrate,  or  dedi- 
cate as  priests,  utensils,  the  Sabbath  day,  where  the  idea  is  that 
of  setting  apart  to  a  holy  use.  See  Exod.  xxviii  :  41  ;  xxix  : 
36;  Deut.  V  :  12.  But  in  its  proper  sense,  it  means  to  cleanse 
away  ceremonial,  and,  especially,  moral  pollution,  2  Sam  xi  : 
4  !  Num.  XV  :  40.  Kindred  to  this  is  the  sense  where  God  is 
said  to  sanctify  Himself,  or  to  be  sanctified  by  His  people — 
i.  e.,  declaratively.     Ezek.  xxxviii  :  23. 

In  the  Greek  Scriptures  dycd^w  is  used  clearly  in  all  the 
above  senses,  to  separate,  to  consecrate,  to 
Testament.  °^  ^"  ^^  purify  morally,  and  to  declare  God's  holiness. 
There  is  a  use  of  this  verb,  of  which  the 
clearest  instances  are  seen  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
especially  ii  :  ii  ;  x  :  10,  14  ;  xiii  :  12,  compared  with  i  :  3.  Dr. 
Sampson  here  renders  the  word  popularly  by  "  redeem."  Sin 
carries  two  consequences — guilt  and  pollution — (nearly  associ- 
ciated  in  the  mind  of  a  Hebrew).  From  the  former,  Christ's 
blood  cleanses,  from  the  latter,  His  Spirit.  When  Christ  is  said 
to  "  sanctify  "  us  by  His  blood.  His  sacrifice,  &c.,  it  is  the  for- 
mer element,  cleansing  away  of  guilt,  which  is  intended  promi- 
nently. This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  verb  is  used  by 
the  Septuagint  as  the  rendering  for  ISr*?  which  is  strength- 
ened by  the  fact  that  the  kindred  word  xaftafn^w  is  used  for 
propitiation  ;  e.  g.,  I  Jno.  i  :  7.  See  Sampson  on  Hebrews,  i  : 
3  ;  and  ii  :  1 1, 

Sanctification,  in  the  gospel  sense,  means  then,  not  only 

cleansing  from  guilt,  though  it  presupposes 
Sanctification    is    of    .1  ■  1  4.-         .1  \    -j.  •      \    j 

the  Soul,    Proofs,  ^^^^^'  ^'^^  only  consecration,  though  it  includes 

'  this,  nor  only  reformation  of  morals  and  life, 

though  it  produces  this  ;  but,  essentially,  the  moral  purification 
of  the  soul.  This  is  the  great  idea  to  which  all  the  ceremonial 
sanctity  of  the  typical  dispensation  pointed  ;  (see  Ps.  Ii  :  6,  7  ; 
xxiv  :  4,  &c.,)  and  it  is  yet  more  emphatically  and  prominently 
expressed  in  the  New  Testament  word  (ijva^w.  In  our  discus- 
sions with  Pelagians,  we  have  already  shown  that  their  idea  is 
erroneous,  viz :  that  holiness  can  only  be  acted  by  man.  We 
have  proved  that  there  must  be  a  previous  spring  in  the  princi- 
ples of  the  soul,  and  the  dispositions  which  dictate  volitions  ; 
otherwise  volitions  formally  right  can  have  no  true  holiness. 
Outward  reformation  cannot,  then,  be  sanctification  ;  because 
the  former  can  only  be  the  consequence  thereof;  as  is  well 
stated  in  Turrettin,  and  is  clearly  implied  by  Matt,  xii  :  t,t,,  34, 
&c.  This  important  practical  truth  may  be  farther  supported 
by  considering,  (b)  that  holiness  in  man  must  be  conceived  as 


662  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  counterpart  of  sin.  (The  Pelagian  admits  this).  But  sin  is 
both  original  and  actual.  Sin  of  heart  is  the  fountain  of  the 
sin  of  life.  Hence,  it  is  fair  to  infer,  as  our  Saviour  does,  in 
fact,  in  the  places  cited,  that  sanctification  has  its  seat  in 
the  heart.  (c)  This  appears  also  by  the  fact,  which  none  will 
deny,  that  infants  may  be  subjects  of  sanctification.  They  can- 
not act  a  sanctification.  (d)  Again,  the  synonymous  phrases 
all  speak  of  "  a  clean  heart,"  of  "  circumcising  the  heart,"  &c. 
And  last,  the  Scriptures  are  emphatic  in  their  assertions,  i 
Thess.  V  :  23  ;  Eph.  iv  :  23,  24 ;  Gal.  v  :  24 ;  Titus  iii  :  5  ;  Luke 
xvii  :  21  ;  Rom.  xiv  :  17. 

When  we  inquire  after  the  extent  of  sanctification,  or  the 

Sanctification  is  of   P^^^s  of  the  human  person  affected  by  it,  the 

the  Whole  Person.   In    Catechism  answers,  that  we  are  renewed  "  in 

What  Sense  of  other    the    whole    man."     In   I   Thess.  v  :  23,  the 

Parts  than  the  Heart?      a  i.i  ^i.  -j  r 

Apostle  expresses  the  same  idea  01  com- 
pleteness, by  employing  the  three  comprehensive  terms  of  the 
Platonic  psychology  current  in  his  day,  (not  meaning  to  endorse 
that  scheme).  Now,  when  we  analyse  that  element  of  human 
character  and  of  human  action,  in  which  moral  quality  resides, 
we  are  compelled  to  say  that,  strictly  speaking,  it  is  only  in  the 
state  and  actings  of  man's  active  powers.  If  there  is  neither 
emotional  activity  nor  choice  involved  in  any  human  act,  that 
act  has  no  moral  character.  Hence,  in  strictness  of  speech, 
the  true  seat  of  sanctification  is  the  will :  the  human  soul  in 
that  class  of  its  actings  expressed  in  Scripture  by  the  word 
heart.  But  the  Apostle  is  writing  popularly,  ^nd  not  scientifi- 
cally. The  emotional  and  voluntary  capacity  of  the  soul  is  not 
a  different  member,  or  department  of  it,  from  the  intellectual. 
It  is  the  one  indivisible  unit,  acting  in  different  modes. 

It  is  the  soul  which  is  sanctified,  and  not  a  faculty  thereof. 

^,     ^    ,  True,    that    sanctification    is    only    a    moral 

The   Soul  hasnoi  r.i  ^    •      -i.  ■<,.••. 

Parts.  change  01  the  soul,  m  its  essence  ;  but  in  its 

results,  it  modifies  every  acting  of  the  soul, 
whether  through  intellect,  appetite,  or  corporeal  volition. 
Every  one  would  consider  that  he  was  speaking  with  sufficient 
accuracy  in  using  the  words  "  a  wicked  thought."  Now,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  a  thought  can  be  wicked,  in  that  sense  the 
power  of  thinking  can  be  sanctified.  What  is  that  sense  ?  A 
thought  is  wicked,  not  because  the  faculty  of  thinking,  or  pure 
intellection,  is  the  seat  of  moral  quality,  abstractly  considered  ; 
but  because  the  soul  that  thinks,  gives  to  that  thought,  by  the 
concurrence  of  its  active  or  emotional,  or  voluntary  power,  a 
complex  character,  in  which  complex  there  is  a  wrong  moral 
element.  To  sanctify  the  intellect,  then,  is  to  sanctify  the  soul 
in  such  a  way  that  in  its  complex  acts,  the  moral  element  shall 
be  right  instead  of  wrong.  So  we  speak,  with  entire  propriety, 
of  a  "  wicked  blow."  The  bones,  skin,  and  muscles,  which 
corporeally  inflicted  it,  are  the  unreasoning  and  passive  imple- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  66^ 

ment  of  the  soul  that  emitted  the  voHtion  to  strike.  But  our 
members  are  sanctified,  when  the  voHtions  which  move  them 
are  holy ;  and  when  the  impressions  of  sense  and  appetite,  of 
which  they  are  the  inlets,  become  the  occasions  of  no  wrong 
feelings  or  volitions. 

The  sanctification  of  our  bodies  consists,  therefore,  not  in 
.  the  ascetic  mortification  of  our  nerves,  mus- 

Body^'not  Asceticism ?^  cles,  glands,  &c.,  but  in  the  employment  of 
the  members  as  the  implements  of  none  but 
holy  volitions,  and  in  such  management  and  regulations  of  the 
senses,  that  they  shall  be  the  inlets  of  no  objective,  or  occa- 
sional causes  of  wrong  feeling.  This  will  imply,  of  course, 
strict  temperance,  continence,  and  avoidance  of  temptation  to 
the  sinful  awakening  of  appetite,  as  well  as  the  preservation  of 
muscular  vigour,  and  healthy  activity,  by  self  denial  and  bodily 
hardihood.  See  i  Cor.  ix  :  27 ;  2  Pet.  ii  :  14 ;  Jas.  iii  :  2.  But 
the  whole  theory  of  asceticism  is  refuted  by  the  simple  fact, 
that  the  soul  is  the  seat  of  holiness  ;  and  that  the  body  is  only 
indirectly  holy  or  unholy,  as  it  is  the  tool  of  the  soul.  The 
whole  delusion,  so  far  as  it  has  sought  a  Scriptural  support, 
rests  on  the  mistake  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  flesh," 
"  caro,"  "adrjq"  which  the  sacred  writers  use  to  mean  depraved 
human  nature  ;  not  the  body.  What  those  fleshly  members 
are,  which  sanctification  mortifies,  may  be  seen  in  Col.  iii  :  5  ; 
Gal.  V  :  19-21. 

Sanctification  only  matures  what  regeneration  began. 
2.  Relation  of  Sane-  The  latter  Sprouted  the  seed  of  grace,  the 
tification  to  New  Birth  former  continues  its  growth,  until  there 
and  Justification.  appears  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  then  the 

full  corn  in  the  ear.  The  agent  and  influences  are  therefore 
the  same. 

In  the  order  of  production,  justification  precedes  sanctifi- 
cation ;  for  one  of  the  benefits  received  by  the  justified 
believer,  in  virtue  of  his  acceptance,  is  sanctifying  grace. 
While  the  two  graces  are  practically  inseparable,  still  their  dis- 
crimination is  of  the  highest  importance  ;  for  it  is  by  confound- 
ing the  two  that  Rome  has  re-introduced  her  theory  of  justifi- 
cation, by  self-righteousness.  Hence,  let  the  student  remember, 
that  the  results  of  the  two  graces  are  different.  Justification 
removes  the  guilt  of  sin,  sanctification  its  pollution.  Justifica- 
tion changes  only  our  legal  relations,  sanctification  our  actual 
moral  condition.  Justification  is  an  act,  sanctification  is  a  pro- 
cess ;  the  one  is  instantaneous  and  complete  in  all,  the  other  is 
imperfect  in  its  degree  in  all,  unequal  in  different  Christians, 
and  is  increased  throughout  life.  Justification  takes  place  in 
God's  court,  sanctification  in  the  sinner's  own  breast. 

The  necessary  and  uniform   connection  between    the   two 

Sanctification  Essen-    ^as  been  argued  substantially  in  the  last  lee 

tial  to  Salvation.  ture  on  J  ustification,  and  to  that  the  student 


664  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

is  referred.  But  the  proposition  is  of  such  prime  importance, 
that  it  will  not  be  amiss,  in  closing  this  head,  to  state  the  points 
of  our  argument  in  somewhat  different  order. 

(a.)  The  Covenant  of  Grace  embraces  both.  Jer.  xxxi  : 
33  ;   Rom.  viii  :  30. 

(b.)  The  sanctity  of  the  divine  nature  requires  it.  i  Pet. 
i  :  15,  16. 

(c.)  The  connection  appears  inevitable  from  the  offices  of 
Christ ;  for  He  is  King,  as  well  as  Priest,  to  all  His  people. 
Rom.  viii  :  29  ;  vi  :  1 1  ;  Titus  ii  :  14 ;  Rom.  viii  :  i,  2. 

(d.)  The  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost  shows  this  connection ; 
for  His  influences  are  a  part  of  Christ's  purchase.  But  He  is 
the  Spirit  of  Holiness.     Rom.  viii  :  9. 

(e.)  The  sacraments  symbolize  cleansing  from  pollution  as 
well  as  from  guilt.     Col.  ii  :  ii,  12;  Titus  iii  :  5. 

(f)  Redemption  would  be  a  mockery  without  sanctifica- 
tion  ;  for  sin  itself,  and  not  the  external  wrath  of  God,  is  the 
cause  of  misery  here,  and  eternal  death  hereafter.  Hence,  to 
deliver  the  fallen  son  of  Adam  from  his  guilt,  and  leave  him 
under  the  power  of  corruption,  would  be  no  salvation. 

Last :  The  chief  ultimate  end  of  redemption,  which  is 
God's  glory  (Rom.  xi  :  36 ;  Is.  Ixi  :  3  ;  Eph.  i  :  6),  would  be  ut- 
terly disappointed,  were  believers  not  required  to  depart  from 
all  sin.  For  God's  holiness,  His  consummate  attribute,  would 
be  tarnished  by  taking  to  His  favour  polluted  creatures.  This 
point  suggests,  also,  the  second,  where  God  points  to  His  own 
perfect  holiness  as  the  reason  for  the  purification  of  His  people. 
No  argument  could  be  plainer.  An  unholy  creature  has  no 
place  in  the  favour  and  bosom  of  a  holy  God.  As  I  have  argued 
in  another  place,  God's  holy  law  is  as  immutable  as  His  nature  ; 
and  no  change  of  relation  whatever,  can  abrogate  it  as  a  rule 
of  right  action. 

To  return  a  moment  to  the  third   point,  I  would  add  on  it 
Faith   Embraces    ^  remark  whicli  I  omitted,  in  order  to  avoid 
Christ  in  all  His  Offi-    interrupting  the  outline.     The  selfishness  and 
^^^'  guilty  conscience  of  man  prompt  him  power- 

fully to  look  to  the  Saviour  exclusively  as  a  remedy  for  guilt, 
even  when  awakened  by  the  Spirit.  The  first  and  most  urgent 
want  of  the  soul,  convicted  of  its  guilt  and  danger,  is  impunity. 
Hence,  the  undue  prevalence,  even  in  preaching,  of  that  view 
of  Christ  which  holds  Him  up  as  expiation  only.  We  have 
seen  that  even  an  Owen  could  be  guilty  of  what  I  regard  as  the 
dangerous  statement,  that  the  true  believer,  in  embracing  Christ, 
first  receives  Him  only  in  His  priestly  office  !  The  faith  which 
does  no  more  than  this,  is  but  partial,  and  can  bear  but  spurious 
fruits.  Is  not  this  the  explanation  of  much  of  that  defective 
and  spurious  religion  with  which  the  Church  is  cursed  ?  The 
man  who  is  savingly  wrought  upon  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  made 
to  feel  that  his  bondage  under  corruption  is  an  evil  as  inexora- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  665 

ble  and  dreadful  as  the  penal  curse  of  the  law.  He  needs  and 
desires  Christ  in  His  prophetic  and  kingly  offices,  as  much  as  in 
His  priestly.  His  faith  "  receives  Him  as  He  is  offered  to  us 
in  the  gospel;"  that  is,  as  a  "Saviour  of  His  people  from 
their  sins." 

The  Scriptures  attribute  sanctification  so  often  to  God,  as 
.,      in  I  Thess.  v  :  23,  that  it  is  hardly  necessary 
caiiffn'oL  Senselhe"    to  set  about  collecting  proofs.     The  sense  in 
Father,  and  the  Son,    which  He  is  the  Author  of  the    grace    has 
but  specially  the  Spirit.    ^^^^  indicated,  when  we  said  that  sanctifica- 
tion is  but  the  continuance  of  the  process  of  which  regeneration 
is  the  initiation.     If  regeneration  is  supernatural,  and  by  a  mys- 
terious, but  real  and  almighty  operation,  more   than  the  moral 
suasion  of  the  truth,  then  sanctification  is  the  result  of  the  same 
kind  of  agency.     The  proper  and  immediate  Agent  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  appears  from  Ps.  li  :  1 1  ;  Jno.  xvi :  8,  9  ;  2  Thess.  ii  : 
13,  &c.,  &c.     This  work  is  also  attributed  to  the  Son,  in  i   Cor. 
i  :  30,  &c.;  and  this  not  merely  in  the  sense  of  the  Epistle  to 
tlie    Hebrews,   because   His  righteousness  is   there  mentioned 
distinctly.     Now,  Christ  is  our  Sanctifier,  because  He  procures 
the  benefit  for  us  by  His  justifying  righteousness;  because   He 
is  now  the  God  of  Providence,  and  Dispenser  of  means  to  His 
people;  and  because,  by  His  perpetual  intercession.    He  pro- 
cures and  dispenses  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  us,  who 
proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.     The  Father  is  also 
spoken  of  as  our  Sanctifier;    e.  g.,  Jno  xvii  :  17,   because  He 
stands  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  as  the  Representative  of  the 
whole  Trinity,  and  is  the  Deviser  of  the  whole  gracious  means, 
and  the  Sender  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 

While  the  agency  in  sanctification  is  supernatural,  and  the 

inscrutable  indwelling  and   operation   of  the 

The  Means  Three.      ^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  required,  not  only  to  initiate, 

but  to  continue  growth  in  grace,  yet  He  operates  through  means 
usually.  And  these  means  may  be  said  comprehensively  to  be 
God's  truth.  His  ordinances,  and  His  providence.  Such  pass- 
ages as  Ps.  xix  :  1-17,  plainly  show  that  not  only  God's  revealed 
word,  but  His  truth  seen  through  the  works  of  nature,  may 
sanctify  the  believer.  But  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
these  truths  of  Natural  Theology  have  any  sanctifying  agency, 
where  they  are  not  confirmed  and  enlarged  by  revelation. 
While  truth  has  no  adequate  efficiency  to  sanctify  by  itself;  yet 
it  has  a  natural  adaptation  to  be  the  means  of  sanctification  in 
the  hand  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  it  is  religious  truth  which 
presents  all  the  objective  conditions  of  holy  exercises  and  acts. 
That  man's  active  powers  may  be  holily  exercised,  an  object  of 
acting  is  needed,  as  well  as  a  power  of  acting.  Thus  in  natural 
vision.  Now,  religious  truth  presents  that  whole  body  of  theo- 
logical facts,  of  examples,  of  inducements,  of  external  motives, 
by  which  the  soul  is  incited  to  act.    By  the  ordinances,  we  mean 


666  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

God's  worship  and  sacraments  ;  for  the  preaching  of  the  word 
comes  more  properly  under  the  former  head.  Worship  is  a 
sanctifying  means,  because  the  petitions  there  offered  are  the 
appointed  medium  for  receiving  grace  ;  and  because  all  the  parts 
of  worship  give  expression  and  exercise,  and  thus  growth,  to 
holy  principles.  The  sacraments  are  means  whereby  God  sym- 
bolizes and  seals  to  us  the  same  truths  expressed  verbally  in 
Revelation.  They  are,  therefore,  a  kind  of  acted  instead  of 
spoken  word,  bringing  to  the  soul,  in  a  still  more  lively  manner, 
those  views  of  truth,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  makes  the  occasion, 
or  objective  of  holy  exercises. 

Last,  God's  providences,  both  prosperous  and  adverse,  are 
powerful  means  of  sanctification,  because  they  impress  religious 
truth,  and  force  it  home,  by  operating  with  the  word  and  Holy 
Ghost,  on  our  natural  emotions.  See  Ps.  cxix  :  71 ;  Heb.  xii  : 
10;  Rom.  ii  :  4.  But  it  should  be  remarked,  that  two  things 
must  concur  for  the  sanctifying  effect  of  Providences — the  light 
of  the  word  on  the  Providences  to  interpret  them  and  give  them 
their  meaning,  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost  inclining  the 
heart  to  embrace  the  truths  they  serve  to  impress.  Mere  suf- 
fering has  no  holiness  in  it. 

Looking  back,  we  now  see  that  there  is  a  sense  in   which 
But  the  Word  is  the    ^^e  Revealed  Word  is  the  uniform  means  of 
Means  in  the  other  In-    sanctification.     It  gives  fulness  and  authority 
struments.  ^^  Natural  Theology.     It  guides,  authorizes, 

and  instructs  our  worship.  It  is  symbolized  in  the  sacraments. 
And  it  shines  through  the  Providences,  which  do  but  illustrate 
it.  So  that  the  Word  is  the  means,  after  all,  in  all  other  means, 
Jno.  xvii  :  17.     Where  the  Word  is  not,  there  is  no  holiness. 

Now,  there  are  two  graces,  by  whose  intervention  the  effi- 
cacy of  all  these  means  of  sanctification  is 
FaftSSe'J-Grace".'^  always  mediated  to  the  soul.  In  other  words, 
these  two  graces  are  the  media  through  which 
all  other  means  come  in  efficacious  contact  with  the  soul.  They 
may,  therefore,  be  called  the  mother  graces  of  all  the  others. 
They  are  Repentance  and  Faith.  It  is  only  when  an  object  is 
apprehended  by  a  full  and  active  belief,  that  it  becomes  the  oc- 
casion of  any  act  of  the  soul.  A  hundred  illustrations  are  at 
hand,  which  show  that  this  is  universally  true,  and  as  true  in 
man's  carnal,  as  in  his  spiritual  life.  Belief  is  the  instigator  of 
action.  But  in  order  that  belief  may  instigate  action,  the 
object  beheved  must  be  so  related  to  the  affections  of  the  mind, 
that  there  shall  be  appetency  and  repulsion.  In  the  case  of 
saving  faith,  that  relation  is  repentance — i.  e.,  the  active  affec- 
tions of  the  regenerate  soul  as  to  holiness  and  sin,  and  the 
means  for  attaining  the  one  and  shunning  the  other.  The  stu- 
dent may  now  understand  why  God  gives  these  graces  such 
prominence  in  practical  religion.  They  are  the  media  for  the 
exercise  of  all  others.      It  follows,   obviously,  that  repentance 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  66/ 

and  faith  must  be  in  perpetual  exercise  during  the  whole   pro- 
gress of  sanctification. 

It  has  been   a   question  long  mooted  between  Evangelical 

Christians,  and  Pelagians,  Socinians,  Jesuits, 

4.  Wesleyan  Doctrine   ^^^  Weslevans,  whether  sanctification  is  ever 

of  Sinless  PerfecUon.  r     ^    ■     \.i  ■      i-r         t-i       -n   i       •  j  c 

perfect  m  this  life.  The  Pelagians  and  bo- 
cinians  had  an  interest  to  assert  that  it  may  be ;  because  such 
an  opinion  is  necessary  to  establish  their  doctrine  of  justification 
by  works ;  the  Jesuits  in  order  to  uphold  the  possibility  of 
"  merits  of  supererogation  ;"  and  the  Wesleyans,  to  sustain  their 
theory  of  free-will  and  the  type  of  religion  which  they  foster. 
As  we  have,  practically,  most  to  do  with  Wesleyans,  on  this 
point,  and  they  reproduce  the  arguments  of  the  others,  let  us 
address  ourselves  to  their  views.  They  assert  that  it  is  scriptu- 
ral to  expect  some  cases  of  perfect  sanctification  in  this  life  ; 
because,  i.  The  means  provided  by  God  are  confessedly  ade- 
quate to  this  complete  result,  should  He  please  to  bless  them  ; 
and  that  it  seems  derogatory  to  His  holy  character  when  He 
assures  us  that  "  this  is  the  will  of  God,  even  our  sanctification," 
to  suppose  He  will  not  hear  and  answer  prayers  for  a  blessing 
on  those  means,  to  any  extent  to  which  the  faith  of  His  chil- 
dren may  urge  those  prayers.  And  2.  He  has  actually  com- 
manded us  to  pray  for  entire  sanctification.  Ps.  cxix  :  5,  6. 
Surely,  He  does  not  cause  the  seed  of  Jacob  to  seek  Him  in 
vain  ?  3.  Not  only  has  He  thus  encouraged,  but  commanded 
us  to  seek  perfection.  See  Matt,  v  :  48.  Unless  obedience 
were  possible,  the  command  would  be  unjust.  And  4.  Perfect 
sanctification  is  nowhere  connected  with  the  death  of  the  body 
by  explicit  texts.  Indeed,  the  opinion  that  it  must  be,  savours 
of  Gnosticism,  by  representing  that  the  seat  of  ungodliness  is 
in  the  corporeal  part,  whereas,  we  know  that  the  body  is  but 
the  passive  tool  of  the  responsible  spirit.  As  to  the  involuntary 
imperfections  which  every  man,  not  insanely  vain,  must  acknowl- 
edge, they  are  not  properly  sin  ;  for  God  does  not  hold  man 
guilty  for  those  infirmities  which  are  the  inevitable  results  of 
his  feeble  and  limited  nature.  Here,  the  Wesleyan  very  mani- 
festly implies  a  resort  to  the  two  Pelagian  principles ;  that  man 
is  not  responsible  for  his  volitions  unless  they  are  free  not  only 
from  co-action,  but  from  certainty ;  and  that  moral  quality 
resides  only  in  acts  of  choice  ;  so  that  a  volition  which  is  preva- 
lently good  is  wholly  good.  Hence,  those  imperfections  in 
saints,  into  which  they  fall  through  mere  inattention,  or  sudden 
gust  of  temptation,  contrary  to  their  sincere  bent  and  prefer- 
ence, incur  no  guilt  whatever.  Last :  They  claim  actual  cases 
in  Scripture,  as  of  Noah,  Gen.  vi  :  9  ;  Ps.  cxix  :  i  ;  Job  i  :  i 
and  8  ;  David,  Ps.  xxxvii  :  37  ;  Zechariah  ;  Luke  i  :  6  ;  i 
Jno.  iii  :  9. 

We  reply  :  Perfection  is  only  predicated  of  these  saints,  to> 


668  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

show  that  they  had  Christian  sincerity  ;  that 
fect°  ^'^'*'  ^""'"^  ^^"  they  had  all  the  graces  essential  to  the  Chris- 
tian character  in  actual  exercise.  As  if  to 
refute  the  idea  of  their  sinless  perfection,  Scripture  in  every 
case  records  of  them  some  fault,  drunkenness  of  Noah,  lying  of 
Abraham,  adultery  and  murder  of  David,  unbelief  of  Zecha- 
riah,  Luke  i  :  20,  while  Job  concludes  by  saying,  "  I  abhor 
myself,  and  repent  in  dust  and  ashes." 

The  most  objectionable  trait  about  this   theor}^  of  perfect 

sanctification,  is  its  affinities  to  Jesuitism  and 
Pelagian  Features.         t>    i       •       •  ti  i 

^  relagianism.      i  nese  are  several  ways  mani- 

fest. We  saw  that  the  old  Pelagians,  admitting  that  a  complete 
obedience  is  requisite  for  a  justification  by  works,  claimed  that 
the  obedience  which  is  formally  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
statute,  and  prevalently  right  in  purpose,  is  perfectly  right.  We 
saw,  also,  how  they  defended  this  view  in  consistency  with 
their  false  ethicks.  For  they  place  the  moral  quality  of  acts  in 
the  volition,  denying  any  certain  efficiency  to  subjective  (as  to 
objective)  motive.  Now,  volition  is,  of  course,  an  entire  and 
single  act.  The  motives  of  a  single  volition  may  be  complex  ; 
but  the  volition  has  a  perfect  unicity.  Hence,  if  the  morality 
of  the  act  is  wholly  in  the  volition,  and  not  in  those  complex 
motives,  if  the  purpose  is  right,  it  is  wholly  right.  But  say, 
with  us,  that  the  volition  derives  its  moral  quality  from  the  sub- 
jective motives,  (which  is  the  doctrine  of  common  sense  and 
the  Bible,)  and  it  follows  that  a  volition  may  have  a  complex 
moral  character ;  it  may  be  prevalently  right,  and  yet  not  per- 
fectly right.  Now,  while  volition  is  single,  motive  is  complex. 
I  showed  you,  that  the  least  complex  motive  must  involve  a 
judgment  and  an  appetency,  and  that  no  objective  theory  is 
ever  inducement  to  volition,  until  it  stands,  in  the  soul's  view,  in 
the  category  of  the  true  and  the  good,  (the  natural  good,  at 
least).  In  the  sense  of  this  discussion,  we  should  include  in 
the  "  subjective  motive"  of  a  given  volition,  all  the  precedaneous 
states  of  judgment  and  appetency  in  the  soul,  which  have  cau- 
sative influence  in  the  rise  of  that  volition.  Then,  many  ele- 
ments may  enter  into  the  subjective  motive  of  a  single  volition  ; 
elements  intellective,  and  elements  conative.  Every  one  of 
these  elements  which  has  a  moral  quality,  i.  e.  which  arises 
imdcr  the  regulative  power  of  subjective,  moral  disposition,  may 
contribute  of  its  moral  character  to  the  resultant  volition.  Now, 
then,  it  is  the  plainest  thing  in  the  world,  that  these  elements 
may  be,  some  unholy,  and  some  holy.  Hence,  the  volition, 
while  possessed  of  an  absolute  singleness  as  a  psychological 
function,  may  have  mixed  moral  character, — because,  simply,  it 
has  morally  mixed  subjective  springs  in  the  agent's  soul.  This 
solution  is  simple  ;  and  in  several  problems  it  is  vital.  Let  it 
explain  itself  in  an  instance.  A  good  Christian  man  is  met  in 
public  by  a  destitute  person,  who  asks  alms.     With  deliberate 


OF    LFXTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  669- 

consideration  the  relief  is  bestowed.  The  things  which  were 
present  in  the  Christian's  consciousness  were  these  :  The  rush 
of  instinctive  or  animal  sympathy  (morally  negative  while 
merely  animal) :  A  rational  movement  of  dyd-y^,  or  love  (mor- 
ally good) :  Recollection  of,  and  desire  for  Christ's  glory  as  dis- 
played in  the  succour  of  His  creature,  (morally  good) :  The 
thought  of,  and  pleasure  in,  his  own  applause  as  a  philanthropist 
(morally  '  negative  at  least,  and  if  inordinate,  criminal) :  Selfish 
appetency  to  retain  the  money  needed  by  the  destitute  person, 
for  his  own  gratification,  (morally  evil).  And  last,  a  judgment 
of  conscience.  Now,  the  nature  of  that  Christian's  process  of 
soul,  during  the  instant  he  stood  deliberating,  was  an  adjusting 
of  these  concurring  and  competing  elements  of  motive.  The 
result  was,  that  the  better  ones  preponderated  over  the  selfish 
reluctance,  and  the  alms  were  given  voluntarily  and  deliber- 
ately. Let  us  credit  the  Christian  with  giving  the  preponderant 
weight  to  Christian  love,  zeal  for  Christ's  honour,  and  the  con- 
scientious judgment  of  obligation.  Then  these  elements  of 
motive  have  constituted  the  concrete  act  a  prevalently  godly 
one.  But  there  ought  to  have  been  no  selfish  reluctance  ! 
Then  the  very  fact,  that  this  evil  element  was  there  and  was 
felt,  and  even  needed  suppressing,  was  an  element  of  moral 
defect.  There  again,  was  the  personal  craving  for  applause, 
which  was  enough  felt,  to  cause  at  least  a  partial  disregard  of 
our  Saviour's  rule,  Matt,  vi  :  3,  at  the  time  of  giving  the  alms^ 
or  afterward.  Then,  this  also  detracts  from  the  perfectness  of 
the  action.  Yet  it  was  a  prevalently  godly  action.  So,  an  act 
may  be  socially  virtuous,  while  prevalently  ungodly  ;  or  an  act 
may  be  wholly  godless  and  vicious.  Only  those,  in  whom  con- 
cupiscence has  been  finally  extinguished,  perform  perfectly 
godly  acts.  Such,  we  repeat,  is  the  analysis  of  common -sense, 
and  of  the  Bible.  But  the  Wesleyan,  acknowledging  remain- 
ders of  concupiscence  in  his  "  complete  "  saint,  and  yet  assert- 
ing that  his  prevalently  godly  acts  are  perfect  acts,  has  uncon- 
sciously adopted  the  false  Pelagian  philosophy,  in  two  points  :  that 
"  concupiscence  is  not  itself  sinful ;"  and  that  the  "  moral  quality 
resides  exclusively  in  the  act  of  soul."  Again  :  when  the  Wesleyan 
says  that  an  act,  to  which  the  good  man  is  hurried  by  a  gust  of 
temptation  so  sudden  and  violent  as  to  prevent  deliberation  ; 
an  act  which  is  against  his  prevalent  bent  and  purpose,  and 
which  is  at  once  deplored,  is  an  infirmity,  but  not  a  sin ;  he  is 
pelagianizing.  He  has  virtually  made  the  distinction  between 
mortal  and  venial  sins,  which  Rome  borrows  from  Pelagius,  and 
he  is  founding  on  that  heretic's  false  dogmas,  that  responsibility 
ends  when  the  will  is  no  longer  in  cqidlibrio.  (In  this  case  it  is 
the  sudden  gust  of  temptation  which  suspends  the  equilibrium). 
There  is  also  a  dangerous  affinity  between  these  principles, 
and  those  horrible  deductions  from  Pelagianism,  made  by  the 
Jesuits,  under  the  name  of  the  art  of  *'  directing  the  attention,"' 


6/0  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

and  venial  sins.  The  origin  is  in  the  same  speculations  of  those 
early  heretics.  The  student  may  see  an  account  and  refutation 
in  the  unrivalled  "  Provincial  Letters  "  of  Blaise  Pascal.  The 
general  doctrine  is  :  that  if,  in  perpetrating  a  crime,  the  direction 
of  the  intention  is  to  a  right  end,  this  makes  the  act  right, 
because  the  act  which  is  prevalently  right  is  wholly  right.  The 
abominations  to  which  this  Pelagian  dogma  led,  in  Jesuits'  hands, 
were  such,  that  they  contributed  to  their  suppression.  '  It  is  not 
charged  that  Wesleyans  countenance  any  of  these  immoral  and 
loathesome  conclusions  :  but  their  premises  are  dangerous,  as 
appears  from  these  results. 

To   proceed :    it  is  true  that  the    Bible  does  not   say,  in  so 
many  words,  that  the  soul's  connection  with 
e  u  a  on.  ^^^  present  body  is  what  makes  sanctification 

necessarily  incomplete.  But  it  asserts  the  equivalent  truth ;  as 
when  it  teaches  us,  that  at  death  the  saints  are  made  perfect  in 
holiness.  It  is  no  Gnosticism,  but  Scripture  and  common  sense, 
to  attribute  some  obstacles  to  entire  sanctification  to  the  continu- 
ance of  the  animal  appetites  in  man.  While  God's  omnipotence 
could  overcome  those  obstacles,  yet  it  is  according  to  His  man- 
ner of  working,  that  He  has  seen  fit  to  connect  the  final  com- 
pleteness of  His  work  of  grace  in  the  soul,  with  this  last  change. 
Hence,  when  the  Scriptures  show  that  this  is  His  plan,  we  are 
prepared  to  believe  it  so. 

God    commands   us,    says  the    Wesleyan,  to  "be    perfect, 
even  as    our  Father    in    heaven   is   perfect," 

Me'irofAbX'^'    '^^^^^"^^  '^^  possibility  must  follow.      I  reply. 

True ;  God  cannot  require  of  us  a  physical 
impossibility.  But  our  inability  to  keep  God's  whole  law  per- 
fectly is  not  physical.  It  began  in  man's  sin.  By  that  sin  we 
lost  none  of  those  faculties  which,  when  Adam's  will  was  right, 
enabled  him  to  keep  God's  command  without  sin.  Our  impo- 
tency  is  an  "  inability  of  will."  Hence,  it  ought  not  to  alter  the 
demands  of  God's  justice  on  His  creatures.  It  is  right  in  God  to 
require  perfection  of  us,  and  instruct  us  to  seek  it,  because  His 
own  perfect  nature  can  accept  no  less.  Did  God  allow  an  ina- 
bility of  will  to  reduce  His  just  claims  on  the  creature,  then  the 
more  sinful  he  became,  the  less  guilt  would  attach  to  his  short- 
comings. A  creature  need  only  render  himself  utterly  depraved 
to  become  completely  irresponsible  ! 

But  we    argue,   affirmatively,    that   sanctification   is  never 

complete  in  this  life,  (a).  Because  the 
Proofs"^  Sinless,    g^ripture  says  expressly  that  remains  of  sin 

exist  in  all  living  men.  See,  for  instance,  i 
Jno.  i:  8;  Jas.  iii:  2;  i  Kings  viii :  46:  Prov.  xx  :  9.  How 
can  such  assertions  be  evaded  ? 

(b.)  I  argue  it,  also,  from  the  perpetual  warfare  which  the 
Scriptures  say  is  going  on  between  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit. 
See  Rom.  vii:   10,  to  end;  Gal.  v  :   17,  etc.      This  warfare,  says 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6/ 1 

the  Bible,  constitutes  the  Christian  hfe.  And  it  is  of  no  avail 
for  the  Wesleyan  to  attempt  evading  this  picture  of  Rom.  vii : 
as  the  language  of  Paul  convicted  but  not  yet  converted;  for 
other  similar  passages  remain,  as  Rom.  viii:  7;  Gal.  v ;  17; 
Phil,  iii :  13  :  i  Tim.  vi :  12,  etc.,  etc.  Now,  as  long  as  the  con- 
test lasts,  there  must  be  an  enemy,  (c).  The  impossibility  of  a 
perfect  olDedience  by  ransomed  men  is  clearly  asserted  in  Scrip- 
ture. Ps.  cxix:  96;  Acts  xv  :  lO.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  latter 
place  the  ceremonial  law  is  more  immediately  in  Peter's  view ; 
bnt  the  whole  law  is  included,  as  is  obvious  from  his  scope  ;  and 
if  either  could  be  perfectly  kept,  surely  the  ceremonial  would 
be  the  easier.  Last :  The  Lord's  Prayer  teaches  all  Christians 
to  pray  for  the  pardon  of  sin ;  a  command  which  would  not  be 
universally  appropriate  if  this  doctrine  were  true.  And  if 
human  experience  can  settle  such  a  point,  it  is  wholly  on  our 
side  ;  for  those  who  are  obviously  most  advanced  in  sanctifica- 
tion,  both  among  inspired  and  uninspired  saints,  are  most 
emphatic  in  their  confessions  of  shortcoming ;  while  those  who 
arrogantly  claim  perfect  sanctification,  usually  discredit  their 
pretentions  sooner  or  later,  by  shameful  falls.  It  is  well  that 
the  Arminians  have  coupled  the  doctrine  of  falling  from  grace 
with  this.  Otherwise  their  own  professors  of  complete  sancti- 
fication would  have  refuted  it  with  a  regularity  that  would  have 
been  almost  a  fatality. 

Now.  the  Almighty  Spirit  could  subdue  all  sin,  in  a  living 
saint,  if  He  chose.  Bible  truths  certainly  present  sufficient 
inducements  to  act  as  the  angels,  were  our  wills  completely 
rectified.  Why  God  does  not  choose,  in  any  case,  to  work  this 
complete  result  in  this  life,  we  cannot  tell.  "  Even  so.  Father ; 
for  so  it  seemed  good  in  Thy  sight." 

The  Wesleyans  are  accustomed  to  claim  a  more  stimulat- 
ing influence  toward  the  pursuit  of  holiness, 
Th^orkrComp°ared^°  f^^  their  doctrine,  and  to  reproach  ours  with 
paralyzing  results.  They  say,  that  with  a 
rational  agent,  hope  is  a  necessary  element  in  the  incentives  tg 
exertion ;  and  that  it  is  unnatural  and  impossible  a  man  should 
attempt,  in  good  earnest,  what  he  thinks  impossible  to  be 
achieved.  But  tell  him  that  success,  though  arduous, is  possible, 
and  he  will  strain  every  nerve,  and  at  least  make  great  progress. 
They  say  that  Calvinists  practically  teach  their  converts  not  to 
aim  high,  and  to  make  up  their  minds  to  low  attainments  in  holi- 
ness. And  hence  the  feeble  and  crippled  character  of  the  most 
of  the  religion  exhibited  in  their  churches.  We  reply,  that  this 
calculation  misrepresents  the  facts,  and  leaves  out  one  of  the 
most  important  of  them.  We  do  not  forbid  hope.  We  teach 
our  people  to  hope  for  constant  advances  in  holiness,  by  which 
they  approach  perfection  continually,  without  actually  reaching 
it  in  this  life.  The  essential  fact  left  out  of  the  estimate  is  the 
invincible  opposition  of  the  new  nature  to  all  sin.     The  man 


6/2  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

renewed  by  God  is  incapable  of  con^enting  himself  with  any 
degree  of  sin.  Here  is  the  safeguard  against  the  cessation  of 
the  struggle  under  the  discouraging  belief  that  victory  is  only 
after  death.  If  the  indwelling  enemy  is  thus  as  long-lived  as 
the  body,  and  immortal  as  long  as  the  body  lives,  yet  truce  is 
impossible  because  the  hostilily  of  the  new-born  soul  to  it  is 
unquenchable.  Does  it  follow  from  this  view,  that  the  life  must 
be  a  life-long  battle?  I  reply,  even  so;  this  is  just  what  the 
Bible  represents  it  to  be. 

We  can  retort  on  the  Wesleyan,  a  juster  objection  to  the 
working  of  his  theory.  By  giving  a  false  definition  of  what  per- 
fection is,  it  incurs  a  much  greater  risk  of  inciting  false  pride, 
and  dragging  the  conscience  into  a  tolerance  of  what  it  calls 
guiltless,  or  venial  infirmities.  The  Bible-Christian,  the  more  he 
is  conformed  to  God,  advances  just  so  much  the  more  in  tender- 
ness aud  perspicacity  of  conscience.  Sin  grows  more  odious, 
just  as  holiness  grows  more  attractive.  Thus,  when  there  is,  in 
God's  view,  less  indwelling  sin  to  extirpate  in  the  heart,  it  is 
nerved  by  its  contrition  to  a  more  determined  war  against  what 
remains.  Thus  an  ever  progressive  sanctification  is  provided  for, 
conformably  to  the  rational  and  free  nature  of  man.  But  our 
question  is :  If  the  Christian  be  taught  that  what  remains  of 
indwelling  sin,  after  a  distinctive  and  decisive  reign  of  grace 
begins  in  the  soul,  •'  is  infirmity  but  not  sin,"  do  we  not  run  a 
terrible  risque  of  encouraging  him  to  rest  on  the  laurels  of  past 
attainments ;  do  we  not  drug  his  conscience,  and  do  we  not  thus 
prepare  the  way  for  just  those  backslidings,  by  which  these  high 
pretenders  have  so  frequently  signalized  their  scheme  ?  Wes- 
leyans  sometimes  say,  that  their  doctrine  of  perfect  sanctifica- 
tion, as  defined  by  them,  amounts  to  precisely  the  same  with 
our  statement  concerning  those  better  Christians,  who,  with 
Caleb  and  Joshua,  (Numb,  xiv :  24),  "followed  the  Lord 
fully,"  and  who  enjoy  an  assurance  of  their  own  grace  and  sal- 
vation. Our  objection  is,  that  a  dangerous  and  deluding  state- 
ment is  thus  made  of  a  scriptural  truth.  All  Christians 
should  be  urged  to  these  higher  spiritual  attainments  ;  but  they 
should  not  be  taught  to  call  that  "  perfection,"  which  is  not 
really  perfect,  nor  to  depreciate  their  remaining  sins  into  mere 
"  infirmities." 

A  form  of  virtual  perfectionism  has  become  current 
recently,  among  Christians  whose  antecedents  were  not  Armin- 
ian,  but  Reformed.  They  call  themselves  advocates  of  the 
"Higher  Christian  Life."  This  stage,  they  say,  is  reached  by 
those  who  were  before  Christians,  by  a  species  of  second  con- 
version. The  person  gains  his  own  full  consent  to  undertake, 
in  reliance  on  Christ,  a  life  entirely  above  sin ;  a  life  which  shall 
tolerate  no  form  or  grade  of  shortcoming.  As  soon  a»  this  full 
resolve  is  entertained,  and  is  pleaded  before  God  with  an  entire 
faith,  the  believer  receives  the  corresponding  grace  and  strength. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6/3 

in  accordance  with  the  promise;  "Ask  and  ye  shall  receive." 
This  attainment  is  often  accompanied  with  a  new  "baptism  of 
the  Spirit,"  bestowing  this  full  victory  over  sin,  with  a  perfect 
assurance  of  acceptance ;  which  baptism  is  immediately  and 
infallibly  recognized  by  the  recipient,  and  in  some  cases,  is 
even  perceptible  to  bystanders,  by  infallible  signs.  Thence- 
foward,  the  recipient  "walks  in  the  light,"  enjoys  perfect 
peace,  and  lives  above  all  sin.  It  is  pleaded  by  the  advocates 
of  this  claim  ;  that  there  is  no  limit  to  the  gospel  promises,  nor 
to  the  merits  of  Christ,  nor  to  the  paternal  grace  of  God ;  that 
the  only  reason  we  do  not  get  fuller  grace  is,  that  we  do  not 
believingly  ask  it :  and  that  no  scriptural  limit  may  be  put 
upon  this  last  proposition,  this  side  of  a  perfect  victory  over 
sin.  If,  say  they,  men  had  a  perfect  faith  to  ask,  they  would 
receive  of  Christ's  fulness  a  perfect  answer.  They  quote  such 
promises  as  these;  "Open  thy  mouth  wide,  and  I  will  fill  it," 
Ps.  Ixxxi :  lO.  "Ask  and  ye  shall  receive,"  Matt,  vii :  8.  "This 
is  the  will  of  God,  even  your  sanctification."    i  Thess.  iv  :  3. 

That  the  promises  of  God  in  Christ  hold  out  indefinite 
encouragement  to  believers,  is  a  precious  truth.  That  it  is  the 
duty  of  all  to  press  forward  to  the  mark,  is  indisputable.  But 
when  men  say,  that  a  perfect  faith  would  receive  a  perfect 
answer,  they  are  but  uttering  a  valueless  truism.  The  man  who 
had  a  perfect  faith  would  be  a  perfect  man.  He  would  need  no 
more  sanctification.  Unfortunately  for  this  theory,  the  indwell- 
ing sin  which  creates  the  need  for  farther  sanctification,  inevit- 
ably involves  some  imperfection  and  weakness  of  the  faith. 
We  shall  always  have  to  raise  the  disciples'  cry;  "  Lord  increase 
our  faith,"  as  long  as  we  cry  for  increase  of  grace.  So,  if  a 
believer's  heart  were  finally,  immutably,  and  perfectly  united, 
through  every  moment,  in  the  resolve  to  live,  by  Christ's 
strength,  absolutely  above  sin,  he  would  doubtless  meet  with 
no  rebuff  in  any  petition  for  strength,  at  Christ's  throne  of 
grace.  But  in  order  to  have  such  a  state  of  purpose,  there 
must  be  no  indwelling  sin  in  that  heart.  This  scheme,  stripped 
of  its  robes,  comes  therefore  to  this  truism  :  "  Were  a  man  abso- 
lutely perfect,  he  would  be  absolutely  perfect  ?"  The  picture  of 
the  Christian's  militant  life,  which  we  ever  see  portrayed  in 
Scripture,  is  that  of  an  imperfect,  but  progressive  faith  uniting 
him  to  his  Saviour,  always  finding  Him  faithful  to  His  promises, 
and  always  deriving  from  Him  measures  of  grace  correspond- 
ing to  the  vigour  of  its  exercise,  yet  always  leaving  room  for 
farther  advances.  There  is  an  exceedingly  broad  and  conclu- 
sive argument  against  all  forms  of  perfectionism  in  this  fact : 
That  the  provisions  of  grace  described  in  the  Bible  are  all  pro- 
visions for  imperfect  and  sinning  men.  The  gospel  is  a  religion 
for  sinners,  not  for  glorified  saints.  This  is  the  only  conception 
of  it  which  appears  in  any  part  of  scripture. 

Only  a  little  experience  and  scriptural    knowledge  are  nec- 

43* 


6/4  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

essaty,  to  make  us  view  the  claims  of  the  spiritual  baptism 
advanced  above,  with  suspicion.  The  immediate  visitation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  should  attest  itself  by  miraculous  "signs,"  by- 
"tongues,"  or  "gifts  of  heahngs ;"  as  it  did  in  apostoHc  days. 
If  these  be  lacking,  we  have  no  other  test  of  its  presence,  than 
the  fruits  of  holy  living ;  and  for  these  we  should  wait.  The 
Christian  who,  instead  of  waiting  for  this  attestation,  presumes 
on  an  intuitive  and  infallible  consciousness  of  the  endowment, 
can  never  scripturally  know  but  that  the  impulse  he  mistakes 
for  the  Spirit's  baptism  is  natural  fanaticism,  or  the  temptation 
of  him,  who  is  able  to  transform  himself  into  an  angel  of  light. 


LECTURE  LVII. 

SANCTIFICATION    AND    GOOD    WORKS.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

5.  What  is   the  Subject  of  Sanctification ;  man's  fallen    Nature,    or  something 
else  ?     And  are  Sanctification  and  mortification  of  sin  progressive  ? 

"  Notes  on  Genesis,"  by  C.  H.  M.  of  Dublin,  p.  200,  &c.  "  Waymarks  in  the 
Wilderness,"  by  Jas.  Inglis,  Vol  i,  p.  10;  Vol.  iii,  pp.  75-332  ;  Vol.  v,  pp. 
29,  37,  &c.,  Dr.  Jno.  Owen,  on  IndweUing  Sin. 

6.  What  constitutes  an  Evangelical  Good  Work  ?     Are  any  works  of  the  natural 
man  godly  works  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xvii,  Qu.  4.  Dick,  Lect.  76.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  4.  Hodge's 
Theol.  pt.  iii,  ch.  18,  g  4. 

7.  Can  man  merit  of  God,  by  works  ?     What  the  Doctrine  of  Rome  concerning 
congruous  and  condign  Merit  ? 

Turretdn,   Qu.  5.     Hill,  as  above  g  2.     Knapp,  |  loS,  125.     Hodge  as  above. 

8.  State  and  refute  the  Popish  Doctrine  of  Concilia  Perfect  ion  is,  and  Superero- 
gation. 

Th.  Aquinas,  Pars  Prima  Secundcz,  Qu.  108.  Suppl,  Qu.  13.  Turrettin, 
Loc.  xi,  Qu.  4.     Knapp,  §  125.     Hill  as  above.     Hodge  as  above. 

9.  What  the  standard   for  our  sanctification  ?     Show  the  value  and  relation  of 
Christ's  example  thereto. 

Dick.  Lect.  75.     Knapp,  117.     Chalmer's  Theol,  Inst.  Vol.  ii,  ch.  10. 

'  I  ^HE   relation   between   regeneration   and   sanctification   has 

been  stated:     The  first   implants  a  life  which  the  second 

nourishes  and  develops.     It  is  the  heart  of 

Sanctification  is  Pro-  j^j     soul,  which  is  the  seat  of  the 

gressive.  ^'-,.  ^  .,  ,  ,i-i 

first.  It  is,  of  course,  the  same  heart,  which 
is  the  seat  of  the  second.  The  latter  is  defined  in  our  Cate- 
chism (Qu.  35),  as  a  "  work  of  God's  free  grace,  whereby  we 
are  renewed  in  the  whole  man  after  the  image  of  God,  and  are 
enabled  more  and  more  to  die  unto  sin,  and  live  unto  righteous- 
ness." See  also  Larger  Catech.,  Qu.  75,  and  Conf.  of  Faith, 
ch.  13,  §  I.  We  regard  sanctification  then  as  advancing  that 
renovation  of  man's  heart,  which  regeneration  begins.  The 
process  of  sanctification  and  that  of  the  mortification  of  sin  are 
counterparts.     The  more  we  live  unto  righteousness,  the  more 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  6/5 

we  die  unto  sin.     Grace  and  indwelling  sin  are  complementary 

quantities,  if  a  material  illustration  may  be  borrowed,  such  that 

the  increase  of  the  one  is  the  corresponding  decrease  of  the 

other.     But    in    opposition    to    this     established    vi'=;w    of    the 

13,        ,1,  T~,    .  •         Reformed  Churches,  the  Plymouth  Brethren's 
Plymouth  Doctrine.        ,        ,  i  i       i       i        .  ,  ,-     , 

theology  asserts  that  both  the  ideas  of  the 

mortification  of  the  "old  man"  and  of  progressive  sanctifica- 
tion  are  false.  They  ascribe  the  same  completeness  to  sancti- 
fication  from  its  inception,  as  to  justification  ;  if  they  do  not 
quite  combine  them.  Thus  :  ("  Waymarks  in  the  Wilderness," 
vol.  iii,  pp.  342,  343),  regeneration  is  defined:  "It  is  a  new 
birth,  the  imparting  of  a  new  life,  the  implantation  of  a  new 
nature,  the  formation  of  a  new  man.  The  old  nature  remains  in 
all  its  distinctness ;  and  the  new  nature  is  introduced  in  all 
its  distinctness.  This  new  nature  has  its  own  desires,  its  own 
habits,  its  own  tendencies,  its  own  affections.  All  these  are 
spiritual,  heavenly,  divine.  Its  aspirations  are  all  upward.  It 
is  ever  breathing  after  the  heavenly  source  from  which  it  ema- 
nated. Regeneration  is  to  the  soul  what  the  birth  of  Isaac  was 
to  the  household  of  Abraham.  Ishmael  remained  the  same 
Ishmael,  but  Isaac  was  introduced."  On  p.  80th,  "  Be  warned 
that  the  old  nature  is  unchanged.  The  hope  of  transforming 
that  into  holiness  is  vain  as  the  dream  of  a  philosopher's  stone, 
which  was  to  change  the  dross  of  earth  into  gold."  ....  "On 
the  other  hand,  never  be  discouraged  by  new  proof,  that 
that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh.  It  is  there  ;  but  it  is 
condemned  and  crucified  with  its  affections  and  lusts.  Reckon 
it  so,  and  that  therefore  you  are  no  longer  to  serve  it.  It  is 
just  as  true,  that  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,  and 
remains  uncontaminated  by  that  with  which  it  maintains  a 
•ceaseless  conflict."  So.  vol.  v,  p.  302.  "  Thus,  two  men  there 
are  in  the  Christian :  so  hath  he  evil ;  and  so  hath  he  not  evil. 
If  therefore  he  purge  out  the  evil,  it  is  his  new  man  purging 
out  his  old  man.  Now  these  two  men,  within  the  control  of 
the  personality  of  the  Christian,  are  real  men,  having  each  his 
own  will,  his  own  energy,  and  his  own  enjoyment." 

In  answer  to  this  exaggerated  view,  we  assert,  first,  that 

while  the  Apostle,  Rom.  vii  :  23,  speaks  of 

The    New    Nature     ,,  .-,         ,     ^.      ,  .'  ,  -"  .  ^  .      ^ 

-Yv^hat?  another  law  m  his  members,  warring  against 

the     law     of    his      mind,"     the    Scriptures 

nowhere  say  that  regeneration  implants  a  "  new  nature ;  or  that 

the  Christian  has  in  him  "two  natures;"  much  less,  two  "real 

men."     Shall  I  be  reminded  of  Gal.  v  :  17,  where  the  "Spirit" 

and   "flesh"   lust  against  each   other?     The   "Spirit"    is   the 

Holy  Ghost.     So  judges  Calvin  ;  and   so   the   scope   of  Paul's 

context,  in  verses  i6th  and   i8th,  decides.     So,  in  that  chapter, 

it  is  a  violence   to    the   Apostle's    meaning,   to    represent   the 

"works  of  the  flesh,"  verse   19th,   &c.,   and  the   "fruits  of  the 

Spirit,"  verse   23d,  as  occupying  the   same  man,  in  full   force, 


6/6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

cotemporaneously.  The  24th  verse  shows,  that  the  latter 
extrude  and  succeed  the  former;  and  that  this  result  is  the  evi- 
dence of  a  state  of  grace.  Our  popular  language  sometimes 
uses  the  word  "  nature  "  in  the  sense  of  Vi\oxdXHabihis  ;  and  we 
speak  of  grace  as  "  changing  the  nature,"  or  "  producing  a  new 
nature."  But  in  strictness,  the  language  is  neither  philosophi- 
cal, nor  scriptural.  A  "  nature  "  is  the  essentia,  the  aggregate 
of  essential  attributes  with  which  the  creature  was  natus. 
Were  this  changed,  the  personal  identity  would  be  gone,  and 
the  whole  responsibility  dissolved.  The  fall  did  not  change 
man's  essentia  ;  nor  does  the  new  creation  ;  each  changed  the 
moral  habitus  of  man's  powers  :  the  fall  to  depravity,  the  new 
creation  back  towards  holiness.  The  notion  of  two  personali- 
ties also,  in  one  man,  is  preposterous.  Here  the  appeal  to  con- 
sciousness is  decisive.  If  there  were  either  two  "natures"  or 
two  "  real  men,"  every  Christian  must  have  a  dual  conscious- 
ness. But  I  need  not  dwell  on  the  truth  which  every  man 
knows,  that,  while  there  is  a  vital  change,  consciousness  is  as 
much  one,  as  in  the  unrenewed  state.  The  explanation  given 
in  the  last  lecture  solves  this  whole  confusion.  While  the  will 
is  one,  motives  are  complex.  Regeneration  works  a  prevalent, 
but  not  absolute  revolution,  in  the  moral  disposition  regulative 
of  the  Christian's  motives.  Amidst  the  complex  of  subjective 
states  which  leads  to  any  one  volition,  some  elements  may  be 
spiritual  and  some  carnal.  As  regeneration  established  a  new 
and  prevalent  (thi.)ugh  not  exclusive)  law  of  disposition,  so 
sanctification  confirms  and  extends  that  new  law  in  introducing 
more  and  more  of  the  right  elements,  and  more  and  more 
extruding  the  wrong  elements. 

Let   us,  second,   bring  the  matter  to   the  test  of  Scripture. 
The  thing  which  is  renewed  is  the  sinful  soul. 

Scripture  Argument.     ^^^     -^    .  ^3  .     jj  .    ^.^  .    j    ^or.    vi  :    I  I   ;     Col. 

i  :  21,  22.  Both  the  sanctification  of  the  soul,  and  the  mortifi- 
cation of  sin  are  expressly  declared  to  be  progressive  processes. 
Let  the  student  consult  the  following  references  :  2  Cor.  1:22* 
V  :  5  ;  Acts  xx  :  32  ;  2  Cor.  iii  :  18  ;  Eph.  iv  :  11-16  ;  Phil, 
iii  :  1 3-1 5  ;  i  Thess.  v  :  23 ;  2  Cor.  vii :  i  ,  Heb.  vi :  I  ;  i  Peter, 
ii  :  2 ;  2  Peter,  iii  :  18;  Rom.  viii  :  13  ;  Col.  iii  :  5.  So,  the 
Bible  compares  the  saint  to  living  and  growing  things ;  as  the 
vine,  the  fruit  tree,  the  plant  of  corn,  the  infant ;  all  of  which 
exhibit  their  lives  in  growth.  Grace  is  also  compared  to  the 
"  morning  light,  waxing  brighter  and  brighter  to  the  perfect  day  ;" 
and  to  the  leaven,  spreading  through  the  whole  vessel  of  meal : 
and  to  the  mustard-seed,  the  smallest  sown  by  the  Jewish 
husbandman,  but  gradually  growing  to  the  largest  of  herbs. 
Is  not  the  rhetoric  of  the  Word  just?  Then  we  must  suppose 
the  analogy  exists ;  and  that  spiritual  life,  like  vegetable  and 
animal,  regularly  displays  its  power  by  growth.  These  innova- 
tors borrow  the  Popish  plea,  that  "  the  new-creation,  being  God's 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.'  6/7 

work,  must  be  perfect."     I  reply  ;  The   infant  is  also  a  work  of 
God's  power  and  skill ;  but  he  is  designed  to  grow  to  an  adult. 
We  find  this  idea  incompatible,  in  the  third  place,  with  the 
laws   of   a    finite    rational    creature.       These 
Progressive."^  ^^    ^'^    ordain,    that    every    faculty,    affection,    and 
habit    must  grow    by    their    exercise,    or  be 
enervated  by  their  disuse  and    suppression.     Depravity  grows 
in  sinners,  (2  Tim.  iii  :  13)  as  long  as  it  is  unchecked.     So,  holi- 
ness must  grow  by  its  exercise.     Even  the  pagan  Horace  under- 
stood   this, — Crescentein   seqidttir  ciira  peciiniaui,    majoriimque 
fames.     This   being  the  law  of  man's  mutable   nature,  it  must 
follow,  that,  as  exercise  increases  the  principles  of  holiness,  so 
the  denial  of  self  and  flesh  must    enervate  and    diminish  the 
principles  of  sin. 

I    object,  in  the  last  place,  to  the  antinomian  tendencies 
^    ,      .       r  ^    ,    which  are,  at  least  latently,  involved  in  this 

Tendencies  of  Dual  i  rr  u    t  Vli     ^     i         i 

Doctrine  Antinomian.  Scheme.  If  one  believes  that  he  has  two 
"  real  men,"  or  "  two  natures  "  in  him,  he  will 
be  tempted  to  argue  that  the  new  man  is  in  no  way  responsible 
for  the  perversity  of  the  old.  Here  is  a  perilous  deduction. 
But  the  next  is  worse,  as  it  is  more  obvious.  If  the  new  nature 
is  complete  at  first ;  and  the  old  nature  never  loses  any  of  its 
strength  until  death ;  then  the  presence,  and  even  the  flagrancy 
of  indwelling  sin  need  suggest  to  the  believer  no  doubts  what- 
ever, whether  his  faith  is  spurious.  How  can  it  be  denied  that 
there  is  here  terrible  danger  of  carnal  security  in  sin?  How 
»  different  this  from  the  Bible  which  says  Jas.  ii  :  18,  "Show 
me  thy  faith  without  thy  works  ;  and  I  will  show  thee  my 
faith  by  my  works."  If  then  any  professed  believer  finds  the 
"  old  man  "  in  undiminished  strength,  this  is  proof  that  he  has 
never  "put  on  the  new  man."  If  the  flesh  is  reviving,  spiritual 
life  is  just  to  that  extent  receding ;  and  just  in  degree  as  that 
recession  proceeds,  has  he  scriptural  ground  to  suspect  that  his 
faith  is  (and  always  was)  dead. 

There  is  a  gospel  sense,  in  which  the  Scriptures  speak  of 
the  acts  and  affections  of  Christians  as  good 
What  ?  °°  °^  '  works.  By  this,  it  is  not  meant  that  they  are 
perfect,  that  they  could  stand  the  strictness 
of  the  divine  judgment,  or  that  they  are  such  as  would  receive 
the  reward  of  eternal  life  under  the  Covenant  of  Works.  Yet 
they  are  essentially  different  in  moral  quality  from  the  actions 
of  the  unrenewed ;  and  they  do  express  a  new  and  holy  nature, 
as  the  principle  from  which  they  spring.  There  is  also  a  cer- 
tain sense  in  which  God  approves  and  rewards  them.  How  'are 
these  evangelical  actions  of  the  soul  defined  ?  We  conceive 
that  the  Scripture  characterizes  them  thus:  i.  They  must  be 
the  actions  of  a  regenerate  soul ;  because  no  other  can  have 
the  dispositions  to  prompt  such  actions,  and  feel  such  motives 
-as   must   concur.      See  Matt,    xii  :  33,   or  vii  :  17,    18.     2.  The 


6"/^  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

I 

action  must  be,  in  form,  regulated  by  the  revealed  will  of  God  ; 
for  He  allows  no  other  rule  of  right  and  wrong  for  the  creature. 
No  act  of  obedience  to  rules  of  mere  human  or  ecclesiastical 
device  can  claim  to  be  a  good  work ;  it  is  more  probably  an 
offence  unto  God.  See  Deut.  iv  :  2 ;  Is.  i  ;  12;  xxix  :  13; 
Matt.  XV  :  9.  As  God's  will  is  to  us  practically  the  fountain  of 
authority  and  obligation,  it  ■  is  obviously  unreasonable  that  the 
debtor  should  decide  for  the  creditor,  how  much  or  wh^t  the 
former  sees  fit  to  pay.  And  moreover,  such  is  the  distance 
between  God  and  man,  and  the  darkness  of  the  sinful  mind  of 
man,  we  are  no  suitable  judges  of  what  service  is  proper  to 
render  God.  Man's  duty  is  simply  what  God  requires  of  him. 
Can  we  err  in  defining  good  works  as  the  right  performance  of 
duty  ?  3.  In  order  for  that  performance  to  be  a  good  work, 
its  prevalent  motive  or  motives  must  be  holy  :  and  among  these,, 
especially,  must  be  a  respectful,  righteous,  and  filial  regard, 
either  habitual  or  express,  to  the  will  of  God  commanding  the 
act.  See  i  Cor.  x  :  31 ;  Rom.  xi  :  26,  and  xii  :  i.  No  princi- 
ple of  common  sense  is  plainer,  than  that  the  quality  of  the  act 
depends  on  the  quality  of  the  intention.  An  act  not  intended 
to  please  God  is,  of  course,  not  pleasing  in  His  sight,  no  matter 
how  conformed  in  outward  shape  to  His  precepts. 

Such  works  are  not  perfectly,  but  prevalently  holy.     I  have 

A  Work  not  per-  ^^o^e  than  once  remarked,  that  the  motive  of 
fectly  Holy  maybe  most  of  our  volitions  is  a  complex  of  several 
prevalently  so.  appetencies.     Now,  this   habitual,  or  present 

filial  regard  to  God's  authority  may  be  the  prevalent  motive  of 
a  given  act ;  and  yet  it  may  be  short  of  that  fulness  and  strength 
which  the  perfect  rectitude  and  goodness  of  the  heavenly  Father 
deserve.  It  may  also  be  associated  with  other  lower  motives. 
Of  these,  some  may  be  personal,  and  yet  legitimate  ;  as  a  reas- 
onable subordinate  regard  to  our  own  proper  welfare.  (The 
presence  of  such  a  motive  in  the  complex  would  not  make  the 
volition  sinful.)  But  other  motives  may,  and  nearly  always  do, 
mix  with  our  regard  for  God,  which  are  not  only  personal,  but 
sinful :  either  because  inordinate,  or  impure,  as  a  craving  for 
applause,  or  a  desire  to  gratify  a  spiteful  emulation.  .  Remem- 
bering the  views  established  in  the  last  lecture,  you  will  perceive 
that  in  such  a  case,  the  volition  would  be  on  the  whole,  right 
and  pious,  and  still  short  of  perfect  rightness,  or  even  involving, 
with  its  holiness,  a  taint  of  sin. 

But  the  best  natural  virtues  of  the  heathen,  and  of  all  un- 

No  True  Good  converted  persons,  come  short  of  being  gos- 
Works  done  by  Un-    pel  good  works.     See,  for  instance.  Gen.  vi  : 

converted  or  Heathen.  ^^  ^„j  j^^^  ^jjj  .  g  j^;^  ^j.^^^  recalls  the 
assertion  made  of  the  total  depravity  of  the  race,  and  its 
grounds.  It  will  be  remembered  that  we  did  not  deny  the  sec- 
ular sincerity  of  the  social  virtues,  which  many  pagans  and  un- 
renewed men  possess.     Nor  did  we   represent  that  their  virtues 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  679 

were  equal  to  the  vices  of  the  wicked.  But  what  we  mean  is, 
that  while  nearer  right  than  the  open  vices,  they  are  still  short 
of  right ;  because  they  lack  the  essential  motive,  regard  to 
God's  revealed  will  and  the  claims  of  His  love.  "  God  is  not  in 
all  their  thoughts."  Now,  as  our  relation  to  God  is  the  nearest 
and  most  supreme,  an  act  which  ignores  this,  however  right  it 
may  be  in  other  motives,  still  remains  prevalently  wrong  in  the 
sight  of  God.  It  does  not  reach  the  level  of  Bible  holiness  at 
all,  though  it  may  rise  much  nearer  towards  it  than  the  sins  of 
the  reprobate.  We  do  not,  then,  represent  God  as  judging  the 
amiable  and  decent  transgressor  equal  to  a  monster  of  crime, 
nor  condemning  all  secular  virtues  as  .spurious  and  worthless 
between  man  and  man. 

The  proposition,  that  even  the  good  works  of  believers  do 
7.  Merit.  Rome's  not  earn  eternal  life  by  their  intrinsic  merit, 
Distinction  into  Con-  has  been  found  very  repugnant  to  human 
gruous  and  Condign.  pride.  Rome  consequently  seeks  to  evade 
the  omission  of  it,  by  her  distinction  of  congruous  and  condign 
merit.  [Merihiin  de  congruo  de  condigno.)  The  former  she 
makes  only  a  qualified  kind  of  merit.  It  is  that  favourable 
quality  which  attaches  to  the  good  works  done  by  the  unre- 
newed man  before  conversion,  which  properly  moves  God  to 
bestow  on  him  the  help  of  His  grace.  The  condign  merit  is 
that  which  attaches  to  evangelical  good  works  done  after  con- 
version, by  the  help  of  grace,  which,  by  its  proper  value  and 
force,  entitles  the  believer  to  eternal  life.  True,  Bellarmine  and 
the  Council  of  Trent,  with  the  most  of  Romanists,  say  that  eternal 
life  comes  to  the  obedient  believer  partly  by  the  merit  of  his  own 
works,  and  partly  by  virtue  of  Christ's  promise  and  purchase ; 
so  that,  were  there  no  Saviour,  human  merit  would  come  short 
of  earning  heaven.  But  they  hold  this  essentially  erroneous 
idea,  that,  in  the  gracious  works  of  the  justified  man,  there  is  a 
real  and  intrinsic  merit  of  reward. 

To  clear  up  this  matter,  let  us  observe  that  the  word  merit 
is  used  in  two  senses,  the  one  strict  or  proper, 
Wlfat?"*'  ^^"''^^^  the  other  loose.  Strictly  speaking,  a  merito- 
rious work  is  that  to  which,  on  on  account  of 
its  own  intrinsic  value  and  dignity,  the  reward  is  justly  due  from 
commutative  justice.  But  when  men  use  the  word  loosely,  they 
include  works  deserving  of  approval,  and  works  to  which  a  re- 
ward is  anyhow  attached  as  a  consequence.  Now,  in  these  lat- 
ter senses,  no  one  denies  that  the  works  of  the  regenerate  are 
meritorious.  They  are  praiseworthy,  in  a  sense.  They  are  fol- 
lowed by  a  recompense.  But  in  the  strict  sense,  of  righteously 
bringing  God  in  the  doer's  debt,  by  their  own  intrinsic  moral 
value,  no  human  works  are  meritorious.  The  chief  confusion 
of  thought,  then,  which  is  to  be  cleared  away,  is  that  between 
the  approvable  and  the  meritorious.  An  act  is  not  meritorious, 
only  because  it  is  morally  approvable. 


680  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Note  further,  that  it  is  wholly  another  thing  to  do  works 
which  may  fall  within  the  terms  of  some  cov- 
Hypothetical  Merit  ^^^^^^^  ^^  promise,  which  God  may  have  gra- 
ciously bestowed.  If  the  king  is  pleased,  in  his  undeserved 
kindness,  to  promise  the  inheritance  for  the  doing  of  some  little 
service  utterly  inadequate  to  the  reward,  and  if  any  creature 
complies  with  the  terms  exactly,  then  the  king  is,  of  course, 
bound  to  give  what  he  has  engaged.  But  he  is  bound  by  fidel- 
ity to  himself,  not  by  commutative  justice  to  the  service  ren- 
dered ;  for  that,  intrinsically,  is  inadequate. 

In  the  strict  sense,  then,  no  work  of  man  brings  God  in  the 
doer's  debt,  to  reward  him.    The  work  which 
Strictly,  no  Creature    -g    ^^orthy   of  this   must    have   the  following 
can  Merit.  .  ^  ■'  ,  ,  .    ,  ,      i  i 

traits  :  It  must  be  one  which  was  not  already 
owed  to  God.  See  Luke  xvii  :  lo.  It  must  be  done  in  the 
man's  own  strength ;  for  if  he  only  does  it  by  the  strength  of 
Christ,  he  cannot  take  to  himself  the  credit  of  it.  "  It  is  not  he 
that  liveth,  but  Christ  that  liveth  in  him."  It  must  be  perfectly 
and  completely  right ;  for  if  stained  with  defect,  it  cannot  merit. 
Last,  it  must  be  of  sufficient  importance  to  bear  some  equitable 
ratio'  to  the  amount  of  reward.  One  would  not  expect  a  large 
sum  of  money  as  wages  for  the  momentary  act  of  handing  a 
draught  of  water,  however  cheerfully  done.  Now,  it  is  plain 
at  the  first  glance,  that  no  work  of  man  to  God  can  bring  Him, 
by  its  own  intrinsic  merit,  under  an  obligation  to  reward.  All 
our  works  are  owed  to  God  ;  if  all  were  done,  we  should  only 
"  have  done  what  was  our  duty  to  do."  No  right  work  is  done 
in  our  own  mere  strength.  None  are  perfect.  There  is  no 
equality  between  the  service  of  a  fleeting  life  and  an  inheritance 
of  eternal  glory. 

We  may  argue,  farther,   that  the   congruous   merit   of  the 

Papist  is  imaginary,  because  nothing  the  un- 
Natural  Works  have    believer  does  can  please   God:      "Without 

no  Ment  of  Congruity.      ......  .,  ,  i  tt-       ..       <.  t-i 

faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  Him.  ihey 

that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God,"  Every  man  is  under 
condemnation,  until  he  believes  on  Christ  with  living  faith.  But 
if  the  person  is  under  condemnation,  none  of  his  acts  can  merit. 
Second :  There  is  an  irreconcilable  contrast  between  grace  and 
merit.  See  Rom.  xi  :  6.  The  two  are  mutually  exclusive,  and 
cannot  be  combined.  Grace  is  undeserved  bestowal ;  merit 
purchases  by  its  desert.  This  being  so,  it  is  vain  for  the  Papist 
to  attempt  to  excuse  his  error  of  a  congruous  merit  subordinated 
to,  and  dependent  on,  free  grace,  by  any  false  analogies  of  first 
and  second  causes.  The  human  affection  or  act  springing  out 
of  grace,  may  have  approvableness,  but  no  sort  of  merit. '  The 
practical  remark  should  be  made  here,  that  when  the  awakened 
sinner  is  thus  encouraged  to  claim  saving  graces  as  due  to  the 
congruous  merit  of  his  strivings,  tears,  reformations,  or  sacra- 
ments, he  is  put  in  the  greatest  peril  of  mistaking  the  v/ay  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  68 1 

salvation,  grieving  the  Spirit,  and  falling  into  a  fatal  self-righte- 
ousness. What  more  insolent  and  deadly  mistake  can  be  made, 
than  this  telling  of  God,  on  the  part  of  a  miserable  sinner,  pen- 
sioner on  His  mere  mercy,  that  the  wretch's  carnal,  selfish  striv- 
ings, or  expedients,  have  brought  the  Almighty  in  his  debt,  in  a 
sense,  to  bestow  saving  helps  ?  Third ;  The  whole  Scripture 
holds  forth  the  truth,  that  Christ  bestows  saving  graces,  not 
because  of  any  form  of  merit,  but  in  spite  of  utter  demerit. 
We  receive  them  "  without  money  and  without  price."  It 
was  "  when  we  were  enemies,  that  we  were  reconciled  to 
God  by  the  death  of  His  Son."  Even  the  saint  seeking  grace 
always,  in  the  Scripture  seeks  it  purely  of  grace.  Much  more 
must  the  sinner.  See  Ps.  li  :  1-4;  Dan.  ix  :  18  ;  i  Tim.  i  :  12- 
16.  In  conclusion  of  this  point,  it  will  be  instructive  to  notice 
the  close  connection  between  this  claim  of  "  congruous  merit," 
and  the  value  attached  by  those  Protestants  who  are  syner- 
gists, to  those  expedients  which  they  devise,  to  prepare  the 
way  for  faith.  Awakened  sinners  are  encouraged  to  use  them, 
and  to  look  to  them,  not  indeed  as  justifying;  but  as  some- 
how leading  on  to  more  saving  graces.  Yet,  there  is  a  cer- 
tain relationship  of  sequence,  between  the  exercisings  and 
strivings  of  carnal  conviction  and  saving  converson.  "  They  that 
be  whole  need  not  a  physician,  but  they  that  be  sick."  The 
pangs  of  the  sick  man  have  a  certain  instrumentality  in  prompt- 
ing him  to  send  for  the  physician  who  cures  him.  In  this  sense 
they  may  be  viewed  as  useful.  But,  per  sp,  they  are  not  in  the 
least  degree  curative  they  are  but  parts  of  the  disease,  whose 
only  tendency  is  death. 

That  no  merit  of  condignity  attaches  even  to  the  good 
works  of  saints,  is  clear  from  the  conditions 
w^,L''o°f"Ri°»:;a.L"  J<f  have  shown  to  be  requisite.  (See  page 
680).  The  most  conclusive  passages  are 
such  as  these:  Luke  xvii  :  9,  10;  Rom.  vi  :  23  ;  v  :  15-18  ; 
Eph.  ii  :  8-10  ;  2  Tim.  i  :  9  ;  Titus  iii  :  5,  and  such  like.  The 
first  gives  an  argument  by  analogy,  founded  on  the  Judean 
husbandman's  relation  to  his  bondsman  (his  oouao;;  not  his  hire- 
ling). The  master  had  legitimate  property  in  his  labour  and 
industry — not  in  his  moral  personality,  which  belonged  inalien- 
ably to  God.  Hence,  when  the  bondsman  rendered  that  ser- 
vice, the  master  did  not  for  a  moment  think  that  he  was  thereby 
pecuniarily  indebted  to  him  for  a  labour  which  was  already  his 
own  property :  however  he  might  regard  the  docility  and 
fidelity  of  the  bondsman  highly  approvable,  he  never  dreamed 
that  he  owed  him  wages  therefor.  So  we  are  God's  property. 
He  has,  at  the  outset  of  our  transacting  with  Him,  ownership 
in  all  our  service.  Hence,  if  we  even  served  Him  perfectly, 
(which  we  never  do,)  we  could  not  claim  that  we  had  paid  God 
any  overplus  of  our  dues,  or  brought  Him  into  our  debt.  He 
might  approve  our  fidelity,  but  He  would  owe  us  no  w^ages.    In 


682  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Rom.  vi  :  23,  the  Apostle  actually  breaks  the  symmetry  of  his 
antithesis,  in  order  to  teach  that  we  merit  nothing  of  God's 
commutative  justice.  Death  is  the  wages  which  sin  earns  :  but 
eternal  life  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  not  wages  earned  by  the 
Christian.     The  remaining  passages  teach  the  same. 

Turrettin  sustains  this  view  farther,  by  showing  that  the 
gracious  acts,  for  which  Romanists  claim  merit  of  condignity, 
and  the  eternal  life  attached  to  them,  are  always  spoken  of  as 
the  Father's  gifts  ;  that  they  are  always  spoken  of  as  the  Re- 
deemer's purchase  ;  that  the  Christians  who  do  them  are  repre- 
sented in  the  Bible  as  acknowledging  themselves  "  unprofitable 
servants ;"  and  that  they  always  confess  the  unworthiness  of 
their  best  works,  especially  in  view  of  the  everlasting  reward. 
The  Scriptures  which  might  be  collected  under  these  heads 
would  present  an  overwhelming  array  of  proof. 

But  carnal  men  strongly  resent  this  conclusion  ;  and  urge. 

It  does  not  Follow  ^s  though  it  were  a  self-evident  refutation, 
that  because  Sin  Merits,  that  as  sin  and  good  works  are  in  antithesis, 
our  Works  Do.  ^^^  cannot  hold  that   man's  sin  carries  a  true 

and  essential  desert  of  punishment,  and  deny  that  his  good 
work  carries  an  equal  desert  of  reward.  To  affix  the  one  and 
refuse  the  other,  they  exclaim,  would  be  a  flagrant  injustice.  I 
reply :  Between  human  rulers  and  ruled,  it  would.  But  they 
forget  here  the  prime  fact,  that  God  is  the  Maker  and  sovereign 
Proprietor  of  men.  The  property  may  be  delinquent  towards 
its  sovereign  Owner,  but  it  cannot  make  the  Owner  delinquent 
to  it.  If  it  fails  in  due  service,  it  injures  the  rights  of  its 
Owner :  if  it  renders  the  service,  it  only  satisfies  those  rights  ; 
nothing  more.  But  here  a  certain  concession  should  be  made. 
While  a  creature's  perfect  obedience  is  not  meritorious  of  any 
claim  of  reward  upon  his  Lord,  in  the  strict  sense,  there  is  a 
relation  of  moral  propriety  between  such  obedience  and  reward. 
We  saw  that  it  appeared  unreasonable  to  claim  everlasting 
reward  for  temporal  service.  But  does  not  a  perfect  temporal 
service  deserve  of  God  temporal  reward?  I  would  say,  in  a 
certain  sense.  Yes ;  supposing  the  creature  in  a  state  of  inno- 
cency  and  harmony  with  his  Lord.  That  is,  it  would  be  incon- 
sistent with  God's  rectitude  and  benevolence,  to  begin  to  visit 
on  this  innocent  creature  the  evils  due  to  sin,  before  he  trans- 
gressed. God  would  not  infringe,  by  any  suffering  or  wrath, 
that  natural  blessedness,  with  which  His  own  holiness  and  good- 
ness always  leads  Him  to  endow  the  state  of  innocency.  But 
here  the  obligation  is  to  God's  own  perfections,  rather  than  to- 
the  creature's  merit. 

Some  have  supposed   these  views  to  be  inconsistent  with 

Did  Adam  and  Elect  the  terms  of  the  Covenant  of  Works  between 
Angels  Merit  under  God  and  the  elect  angels,  and  God  and  Adam. 
Covenantor  Works?  ^^ley  say  that  Paul,  Rom.  iv  :  4,  5,  and  xi  : 
6,    in    drawing  the  contrast   already  cited  between  works  and 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  683 

grace,  assigns  condign  merit  to  a  perfect  service  done  under  a 
Covenant  of  Works.  "  To  him  that  worketh  is  the  reward 
reckoned  not  of  grace,  but  of  debt,"  I  reply  :  this  of  course, 
is  true  of  works  done  under  a  covenant  of  works  :  but  to  over- 
throw the  Reformed  argument,  they  must  show  that  it  would  be 
true  also  of  works  done  under  the  natural  relation  to  God,  as 
Lord  before  any  covenant  of  promise.  When  once  God  has 
gratuitously  condescended  to  promise,  a  claim  of  right  for  the 
perfect  service  rendered  does  emerge  :  of  course.  It  emerges 
out  of  God's  fidelity;  not  out  of  commutative  justice.  And 
when  the  creature,  as  Gabriel  for  instance,  complies  with  the 
covenanted  terms  perfectly,  and  in  his  own  strength,  he  gets  his 
reward  on  different  terms  from  those  of  the  pardoned  sinner. 
There  is,  in  a  sense,  an  earning  under  compact ;  such  as  the 
sinner  can  never  boast ;  and  this,  we  presume,  is  all  the  Apostle 
ever  meant. 

It    only    remains,    on    this    head,    to    explain    the  relation 
In  what  Sense  are    between  the  good  works   of  the  justified  be- 
Believer's  Works  Re-    liever    and    his    heavenly    reward.     It  is  ex- 
^^'■'^'^'^  ■  plained  by  the  distinction  between  an  intrinsic 

and  original  merit  of  reward,  and  the  hypothetical  merit  granted 
by  promise.  If  the  slave  fulfills  his  master's  orders,  he  does  not 
bring  the  latter  in  his  debt.  "  He  is  an  unprofitable  servant ; 
he  has  only  done  what  was  his  duty  to  do."  But  if  the  master 
chooses,  in  mere  generosity,  to  promise  freedom  and  an  inheri- 
tance of  a  thousand  talents  for  some  slight  service,  cheerfully 
performed,  then  the  service  must  be  followed  by  the  reward. 
The  master  owes  it  not  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  slave's  acts, 
(the  actual  pecuniary  addition  made  thereby  to  the  master's 
wealth  may  be  little  or  nothing,)  but  to  his  own  word.  Now,  in 
this  sense,  the  blessings  of  heaven  bear  the  relation  of  a  "  free 
reward"  to  the  behever's  service.  It  contributes  nothing  essen- 
tial to  earning  the  inheritance  ;  in  that  point  of  view  it  is  as 
wholly  gratuitous  to  the  believer,  as  though  he  had  been  all  the 
time  asleep.  The  essential  merit  that  earned  it  is  Christ's.  Yet 
it  is  related  to  the  loving  obedience  of  the  believer,  as  appointed 
consequence.  Thus  it  appears  how  all  the  defects  in  his  evan- 
gelical obedience  (defects  which,  were  he  under  a  legal  cove- 
nant, would  procure  the  curse,  and  not  blessing,)  are  covered 
by  the  Saviour's  righteousness ;  so  that,  through  Him,  the 
inadequate  works  receive  a  recompense.  Moreover,  it  is  clearly 
taught  that  God  has  seen  fit,  in  apportioning  degrees  of  blessed- 
ness to  different  justified  persons,  to  measure  them  by  the 
amount  of  their  good  works.  See  Matt,  xvi  :  27  ;  I  Cor.  iii  : 
8,  of  which  Turrettin  remarks,  that  the  reward  is  "  according 
to,"  but  not  "  on  account  of"  the  works.  See  also,  2  Cor.  ix  : 
6  ;  Luke  xix  :  17,  18.  Not  only  the  sovereignty,  but  the 
wisdom  and  righteousness  of  a  gracious  God  are  seen  in  this 
arrangement.     Thus  a  rational  motive  is  applied  to  educe  dili- 


684  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

gent  obedience.  Thus  it  is  evinced  that  the  gospel  is  not  a 
ministration  of  indolence  or  disobedience  ;  and  God's  verdicts 
in  Christ  not  inconsistent  with  natural  justice.  It  is  thus,  because 
the  grace  given  on  earth  is  a  preparation  of  the  soul  for  more 
grace  in  heaven.  And  last,  good  works  are  the  only  practical 
and  valid  test  of  the  genuineness  of  that  faith,  by  which  believ- 
ers receive  the  perfect  merits  of  Christ.  This  last  fact,  especi- 
ally, makes  it  proper  that  the  "free  reward"  shall  be  bestowed 
"  according  to  their  works  ;"  and  explains  a  nmltitude  of  pas- 
sages, which  Papists  suppose  make  the  reward  depend  on 
the  works. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  Romish  Church  is   indebted  to  the 

8.    Works  of  Super-    ^S^  of  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  most  probably 
erogation,     Source  of   to   him,  for    the    final  theory  of  "  works    of 

^''^^y-  supererogation."    He   found  among  the  Fath- 

ers, the  distinction  between  Christ's  prcBcepta  and  concilia.  This 
distinction  pretending  to  find  its  grounds  in  certain  texts  of  the 
New  Testament,  more  probably  had  its  origin  in  a  desire  to 
imitate  the  exoteric  and  the  esoteric,  higher  and  lower,  morals 
of  the  New  Platonists.  The  instances  of  Concilia  usually  quoted 
are  those  of  Matt,  xix :  12  and  21:  i  Cor.  vii :  38-40;  Acts 
xxi :  23,  -zAf,  and  they  are  usually  grouped  by  them  under  the 
three  virtues  of  voluntary  poverty,  perpetual  chastity,  and  reg- 
ular obedience.  The  Church  had  long  held,  that  while  every 
one  must  strive  to  obey  all  the  precepts  of  Christ,  on  pain  of 
damnation,  he  is  not  expressly  bound  to  comply  with  the  "  coun- 
cils of  perfection."  If  he  sees  fit  to  omit  them,  he  incurs  no 
wrath.  They  are  but  recommendations.  Yet,  if  his  devoted 
spirit  impels  him  to  keep  them  for  the  glory  of  God,  he  thereby 
earns  supererogatory  merit,  superfluous  to  his  own  justification. 
Aquinas  now  proceeds  to  build  on  this  foundation  thus  :  One 
man  can  work  a  righteousness,  either  penal  or  supererogatory, 
so  that  its  imputation  to  his  brother  may  take  place.  What  else, 
he  argues,  is  the  meaning  of  Gal.  vi :  2  ;  '•  Bear  ye  one  another's 
burdens,"  etc.  ?  And  among  men,  one  man's  generous  efforts 
are  permitted  in  a  thousand  ways  to  avail  for  another,  as  in 
suretyships.  "  But  with  God,  love  avails  for  more  than  with 
men."  Yea,  a  less  penance  is  a  satisfaction  for  a  brother's 
guilt  than  would  be  requisite  for  one's  own,  in  the  case  of  an 
equal  sin.  Because  the  purer  disinterestedness,  displayed  in 
atoning  for  the  penitential  guilt  of  a  brother,  renders  it  more 
amiable  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  so,  more  expiatory.  If  a  sin- 
ning believer  hits  himself  twenty  blows  with  his  whip  on  his 
bare  shoulders,  it  may  be  that  a  selfish  fear  of  purgator>"  is  a 
large  part  of  his  motive  ;  and  God  will  subtract  from  the  merit 
of  the  act  accordingly.  But  when  he  does  it  for  his  brother's 
sin,  it  is  pure  disinterested  love  and  zeal  for  God's  honor,  the 
twenty  blows  will  count  for  more. 

The  philosopher  then  resorts  to   the  doctrine  of  the  unity 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  685- 

Imputation  of  Super-  pf  the  Church,  and  the  communion  of  saints 
erogatory  Merit,  and  in  cach  Other's  graces  and  sufferings,  to  show 
orSenLlS*'    that  the  merit  of  these  supererogatory  ser- 

Vices  and  suftenngs  is  imputed  to  others. 
There  is,  in  the  holy  CathoHc  Church  then,  a  treasury  to  which 
all  this  spare  merit  flows.  As  the  priesthood  hold  the  power 
of  the  keys,  they  of  course  are  the  proper  persons  to  dispense 
and  apply  it.  But  as  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  especially  rep- 
resented in  its  earthly  head,  the  Pope,  he  especially  is  the  proper 
person  to  have  charge  of  the  treasury.  And  this  is  the 
way  indiilgentia  is  procured  ;  the  Pope  imputes  some  of  this 
supererogatory  merit  of  works  and  penance  out  of  the  Church 
treasure ;  whence  the  remission  to  the  culprit  of  the  penitential 
and  purgatorial  satisfaction  due  from  him  for  sin.  But  his  con- 
fession, absolution,  and  contrition  are  necessary ;  otherwise 
indulgence  does  no  good,  because  without  these  exercises  the 
man's  own  personal  penance  would  have  done  no  good.  Last, 
this  indulgence  may  properly  be  given  by  the  Church,  in  return 
for  money,  provided  it  be  directed  to  a  holy  use,  as  repairing 
churches,  building  monasteries,  etc.  (He  forgot  our  Saviour's, 
words  :     "  Freely  ye  have  received,  freely  give.") 

The  overthrow  of  all  this  artificial  structure  is  very  easy  for 

Distinctions  of  Coun-    the  Protestant.     We  utterly  deny  the  distinc- 

sels  of  Perfection  Re-    tion   of  the  pretended   "  counsels   of  perfec- 

tion,"  from  the  precepts,  as  wicked  and 
senseless.  It  is  impossible  that  it  can  hold :  because  we  are 
told  that  the  precepts  go  to  this  extent,  viz  :  requiring  us  to. 
love  God  with  all  the  soul  and  heart  and  mind,  and  strength. 
If,  then,  any  Christian  has  indeed  found  out  that  his  circumstances, 
are  such,  the  refraining  from  a  given  act,  before  and  elsewhere 
indifferent,  has  become  necessary  to  Christ's  highest  glory; 
then  for  him  it  is  obligatory,  and  no  longer  optional.  "  To  him 
that  knoweth  to  do  good,  and  doeth  it  not,  to  him  it  is  sin." 
Rome's  own  instance  refutes  her.  In  Matt,  xix  :  23,  24, 
the  rich  ruler  incurs,  by  rejecting  our  Saviour's  counsel, 
not  the  loss  of  supererogatory  merit,  but  the  loss  of  heaven  ! 
Again  :  how  can  he  have  superfluity  who  lacks  enough  for  him- 
self ?  But  all  lack  righteousness  for  their  own  justification  ;  for 
"in  many  things  we  offend  all."  So,  the  Scriptures  utterly 
repudiate  the  notion  that  the  righteousness  of  one  man  is  impu- 
table to  another.  Christian  fellowship  carries  no  such  result. 
It  was  necessary  (for  reasons  unfolded  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Mediator),  that  God  should  effectuate  the  miracle  of  the  hypo- 
static union,  in  order  to  make  a  Person,  whose  merit  was 
imputable.  "None  of  them  can  by  any  means  redeem  his 
brother,  or  give  to  God  a  ransom  for  him."  Nor  does  the 
Protestant  recognize  the  existence  of  that  penitential  guilt, 
which  is  professed  to  be  remitted  by  the  indulgence. 

The  standard    set   for  the    believer's  sanctification  is    the 


686  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

8.  Standard  of  Sane-  character  of  God  as  expressed  in  His  precep- 
tification,  Law,  and  tive  law.  This  rule  is  perfect,  and  should  be 
Jesus'  Example.  sufficient    for    our  guidance.       But   God,    in 

condescension  to  our  weak  and  corporeal  nature,  has  also  given 
us  an  example  in  the  life  of  the  Redeemer.  And  this  was  a  sub- 
sidiary, yet  important  object  of  His  mission.  See  i  Pet.  ii :  2i. 
(We  recognize  in  its  proper  place,  this  prophetic  function  of  the 
Mediator,  which  the  Socinian  makes  the  sole  one.)  The  advan- 
tage of  having  the  holy  law  teaching  by  example  is  obvious. 
Man  is  notoriously  an  imitative  creature.  God  would  fain 
avail  Himself  of  this  powerful  lever  of  education  for  his  moral 
culture.  Example  is  also  superior  in  perspicuity  and  interest, 
possessing  all  the  advantage  over  precept,  which  illustration 
has  over  abstract  statement.  If  we  inspect  the  example  of 
Christ,  we  shall  find  that  it  has  been  adjusted  to  its  purpose 
with  a  skill  and  wisdom  only  inferior  to  that  displayed  in  His 
atoning  offices.  Examining  first  the  conditions  of  an  effective 
example,  we  find  that  they  all  concur  in  Christ.  It  is  desirable 
that  our  examplar  be  human  ;  for  though  holiness  in  God  and  in 
angels  is,  in  principle,  identical  with  man's,  yet  in  detail  it  is  too 
different  to  be  a  guide.  Yet  while  it  is  so  desirable  that  the 
example  be  human,  it  must  be  perfect ;  for  fallible  man  would  be 
too  sure  to  imitate  defects,  on  an  exaggerated  scale.  Man  is 
naturally  out  of  harmony  with  holiness,  too  far  to  be  allured  by 
its  example ;  he  would  rather  be  alienated  and  angered  by  it. 
Hence,  the  exemplar  must  begin  by  putting  forth  a  regenerating 
and  reconciling  agency.  •  Last :  it  is  exceedingly  desirous  that 
the  examplar  should  also  be  an  object  of  warm  affection; 
because  we  notice  that  the  imitative  instinct  always  acts  far 
most  strongly  towards  one  beloved.  But  Christ  is  made  by  His 
work  the  prime  object  of  the  believer's  love. 

The  value  of  Christ's  example  may  be  also  illustrated  in 
the  following  particulars  :  It  verifies  for  us 
Example.  °  "^' ^  ^^^  conception  of  holiness,  as  generally  dis- 
played in  God.  That  conception  must 
lack  definiteness,  until  we  see  it  embodied  in  this  "  Image  of  the 
invisible  God,"  who  is  "the  brightness  of  His  glory,  and  the 
express  image  of  His  person."  See  Lect.  vii :  end.  Next, 
Christ  has  illustrated  the  duties  of  all  ages  and  stations ;  for  the 
divine  wisdom  collected  into  His  brief  life  all  grades,  making 
Him  show  us  a  perfect  child,  youth,  man,  son,  friend,  teacher, 
subject,  ruler,  king,  hero,  and  sufferer.  Again,  Christ  teaches 
us  how  common  duties  are  exalted  when  performed  from  an 
elevated  motive ;  for  He  was  earning  for  His  Church  infinite 
blessedness,  and  for  His  Father  eternal  glory,  when  fulfilling  the 
humble  tasks  of  a  peasant  and  mechanic.  And  last,  in  His 
death  especially.  He  illustrated  those  duties  which  are  at  once 
hardest  aud  most  essential,  because  attaching  to  the  most  crit- 
ical emergencies  of  our  being,  the  duties  of  forgiveness  under 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  68/ 

wrong,  patience  and  fortitude  under  anguish,  and  faith  and 
courage  in  the  hour  of  death.  Consult,  Rom.  xv :  3  ;_  Phil,  n  : 
5;  Heb.xii:  2,  3 ;   1  Jno.  iii :   16;  Eph.  iv :  13;  Jno.xiii:   15  ;   i 

Cor.  xi :    I.  .     . 

Some  have  endeavoured  to  object,  that  we  must  not  mu- 
tate even  an  incarnate  Christ,  because  He  is  God  and  man,  and 
His  mediatorial  sphere  of  action  above  ours.  I  reply  :  of  course 
we  do  not  presume  to  imitate  His  divine  acts.  But  was  He  not 
made  under  our  law?  One  end  of  this  was  that  He  might 
show  us  a  human  perfection,  adapted  for  our  imitation. 


LECTURE  LVm 

PERSEVERANCE  OF  THE  SAINTS. 


SYLLABUS. 

1  State  the  Doctrines  of  Pelagians,  Papists,  Amiinians  and  Calvinists  hereon.     _ 
Conf.  of  Faith,   ch.  xvii.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  16.  g  1-8.     Witsius,  bk.  111, 

2  ProVe  the  Doctrine,  i.  From  God's  election.  2.  From  the  Covenant  of  Grace. 
3.  From  Union  to  Christ  and  participation  in  His  merits  and  mtercession.  4-  i^^om 
the  indwellins:  and  Seed  of  the  Spirit.  „. ,  ,        ^  iir-..  • 

Turretdn  as  above,  §  9-2^     Dick,  Lect.   79-     Ridgley,  Qu.  79-     Witsms,  as 
above,  §  12-37. 
2.  Present  other  Scriptural  proofs. 

Turrettin,  as  above,  Qu.  16,  §  25-28.     Ridgley.  Qu.  79- 
A    Reconcile  objections  ;  and  especially  those  founded  on  Scripture-passages,  as 
Ezek  xviii :  24 ;  Heb.  vi :  4,  &c.;  x :  29,  38  ;  iii  =  12.     i  Cor.  ix  :  27  ;  2  Peter,  11  :  20  ; 

^°™'  TuJreJtint  as  above,  Qu.  16,  §  29-end.     Dick,  Lect.  79-     Ridgley,  Qu.  79.  ?  4- 
Sampson  on  Hebrews.     Watson's  Theol.  Inst.  ch.  25. 
5.  What  is  the  moral  Tendency  of  the  Doctrine  ? 
Witsius  as  above,  §  39-46. 

SCRIPTURE  and  experience  concur  in  imputing  to   man,   in 
his  natural  state,  an  obduracy  and  deadness  of  heart,  which 
would  leave  the  preacher    of  the    gospel   to 
This  Doctrine  En-    ^^^^^  ^^  despair,  were  it  not  for  his  depend- 
couraging  to  Preacher.    ^^^^  ^^  the  Sovereign  grace   of   God.      But 
when  he  believes  firmly  in  the  eternal  covenant  of  grace,  whereby 
God  has  promised  His  Son  a  chosen  seed,  not  for  any    merit 
which  He  sees  in  sinners,  and  to  call  and  perfect  this   seed    by 
His  efficacious  grace,  there  is  ground  laid  for  cheerful  exertions. 
The  laborious  Christian  then  looks  upon  his  own  efforts  for  sin- 
ners  as  one  of  the    preordained   steps   in  this  plan  of  mercy, 
upoA  his  prayers  as  taught  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  there 
fore  surely  destined  to  an  answer ;  and  upon   the  visible  suc- 
cess of  his  labours,  as  the  evidence  that   God,   whose   plans  are 
immutable,  and  who  always  perfects  what  He  undertakes,   is 
■working      He  is  joyfully  hopeful  concerning  the    final  triumph 


688  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  those  who  are  born  unto  God  by  his  instrumentahty, 
because  he  sees  an  eternal  purpose  and  unchangeable  love 
engaged  for  their  upholding.  He  can  cheerfully  leave  them, 
though  surrounded  with  the  snares  of  the  world ;  because  he 
leaves  the  Chief  Shepherd  with  them,  who  will  easily  raise  up 
other  instruments  and  provide  other  means  for  their  guidance. 
In  this  spirit  the  Apostle  says,  Phil,  i :  6,  that  from  the  first 
e,  r,    1  TT      J  •.        ^9-y  of  their  conversion  till  now,  his  prayers 

bt.  raul  l-ounditso.      r       i  •      -ni  -i-        ■  i       i       i  i' 

tor  his  rhilippian  converts  had  always  been 
offered  in  joy,  because  he  was  confident  that  the  Redeemer,  who 
had  b£gun  the  blessed  work*in  them,  by  their  regeneration, 
faith,  and  repentance,  would  continue  that  work  of  sanctifica- 
tion,  till  it  was  perfected  at  the  second  coming  of  Jesus  Christ, 
in  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies,  and  their  complete  glorifica- 
tion. This  work  was  begun  in  them  by  God,  not  by  their  own 
free  choice,  independent  of  grace ;  for  that  choice  always 
would  have  been,  most  freely  and  heartily,  to  choose  sin.  It 
must  have  been  begun  by  God  from  deliberate  design;  for 
God  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  His  own  will.  That 
design  and  purpose  of  mercy  was  not  founded  on  anything 
good  in  them,  but  on  God's  unchangeable  mercy  ;  and  there- 
fore it  would  not  be  changed  by  any  of  their  faults,  but  the 
unchanging  God  would  carry  it  out  to  perfection. 

We  have  here  the  Apostle's  plain  expression  of  his   belief 
^      .  in  the  perseverance  of  the  truly   regenerate. 

Doctrine  to  be  Dis-     •      „  ^t.„t.^  „r  i.  i.      i.u  j  t 

cussed  Fairly.  ^^  ^  state  oi  repentance,  unto  the  end.       In 

attempting  the  discussion  of  this  doctrine,  let 
us  exercise  the  spirit  of  humility  and  candor,  laying  aside  prej- 
udice, avoiding  all  abuses  or  perversions  of  God's  truth,  and 
striving  to  apprehend  it  just  as  He  has  presented  it.  I  would 
at  the  outset  guard  the  truth  from  abuse,  and  from  opposition 
by  defining: 

That  this  perseverance  in  a  state  of  grace  is  not  innate  and 
necessary,    with    the    new-born    nature,    but 
fined.  gracious.    It  does  not  proceed  from  anything 

in  the  interior  state  of  the  regenerate  soul, 
but  wholly  from  God's  purpose  of  mercy  towards  that  soul. 
Security  from  fall  is  the  attribute  of  none  but  God,  Adam  in 
Paradise  was  capable  of  apostasy.  Holy  angels  were  capable 
of  apostasy;  for  many  of  them  fell ;  and  doubtless  the  angels 
and  glorified  saints  in  heaven  owe  their  infallibility,  not  to  their 
own  strength,  but  to  God's  unchanging  grace  working  in  them. 
Much  more  would  the  Christian,  in  his  imperfection,  be  liable 
to  fall. 

This  perseverance  does  not  imply  that  a  man  may  be  living 
.,,     .       in  habitual  and  purposed  sin,  and  yet  be  in  a 
Sin.°     ""^l^^ '   ^^''     justified  state,  because  he  who  is   once  justi- 
fied cannot  come    into  condemnation.       We 
heartily  join  in  everything  which  can  be    said  against  so  odious 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  689 

a  doctrine.  It  is  impossible,  because  the  living  in  such  a  state 
of  sin  proves  that  the  man  never  was,  and  is  not  now,  in  a  jus- 
tified state,  whatever  may  be  his  names  and  boasts. 

Our  doctrine  does  not  teach  that  many  will  not  be  finally 
lost,  who  are  connected  with  the  visible  Church  outwardly,  and 
whom  the  Scriptures  may  call  believers  in  a  certain  sense, 
because  they  have  a  temporary  or  historical  faith,  like  that  of 
Simon  Magus.  But  those  who  have  once  had  in  them  the  true 
principle  of  spiritual  life,  never  lose  it. 

Nor  do  we  teach  that  all  Christians  have  equal  spiritual 
vitality  at  all  times ;  but  they  may  fall  into  partial  errors  of 
doctrine,  coldness  and  sin,  which  may  for  a  time  wholly  inter- 
rupt their  comfort  in  religion,  and  overcloud  their  evidence  of 
a  gracious  state.     Yet  is  the  root  of  the  matter  there. 

It  is  simply  this ;  that  "  They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in 
His  Beloved,  and  effectually  called  and  sane- 

n.iS:feTt"seir^''  '}^''^  ^y  ^''  Spirit,  Can  neither  totally  nor 
finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace ;  but 
shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be  eternally 
saved." 

As  I  have  taken  the  definition  of  the  doctrine  from  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  take  my 
method  of  discussion  from  the  same  source.  Under  each  head 
many  Scriptures  will  come  in,  more  naturally  and  easily,  so 
that  the  support  they  give  to  the  doctrine  will  be  more  mani- 
fest, and  more  clearly  understood. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  the  competing  opinions 'should 

_        .      ^  .  .  be  stated.       Pelagians,   Papists,   and  Armin- 

Opposite    Opinions.     •  ,         1      •  °  ^1     ,   .  1        ,      1 

^^  *^  lans  teach,  m  common,  that  the  truly  regen- 

erate believer  may  totally  and  finally  fall  away,  and  be  lost. 
Some  Weslyans,  in  view  of  Heb.  vi :  6,  teach  that  apostasy 
from  a  true  state  of  grace  is  possible,  but  th,at  the  reconversion  of 
the  man  thus  fallen  never  occurs.  The  premise  by  which  this 
denial  of  the  saints'  perseverance  is  dictated,  is  their  favourite 
definition  of  free  agency,  as  involving  necessarily  the  contin- 
gency of  the  will.  They  are  consistent  with  their  false  philos- 
ophy ;  for  the  will  of  the  saint  who  certainly  perseveres  is 
obviously  not  in  a  contingent  state.  Hence,  in  their  view,  his 
gracious  acts  would  not  be  free  nor  responsible.  Some  of  the 
Reformed  have  modified  the  doctrine  to  this  extent.  They 
suppose  that  an  elect  man  may  totally  fall  away ;  but  that  God's 
purpose  of  grace  towards  him  is  always  effectuated  by  his 
reconversion,  before  he  dies.  Thus ;  they  would  suppose  that 
at  the  time  of  David's  shocking  crimes,  faith  and  spiritual  life 
had  utterly  died  in  him.  But  God's  faithful  purpose  called  him 
back  to  true  repentance  in  due  time.  The  motive  of  this  state- 
ment is  pious ;  they  think  it  safer  to  teach  thus,  than  to  say  that 
there  was  even  a  spark  of  true  life  in  David's  soul  while  he  was 
acting  so  criminally ;  because  the  latter  view  may  tempt  men 
44* 


690  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

living  in  gross  sin  to  flatter  themselves  with  a  false  hope.  Yet 
their  view,  however  well-intended,  is  not  scriptural,  and  is 
obnoxious  to  a  part  of  the  arguments  we  shall  use.  It  is 
inconsistent  with  that  vitality  of  the  seed  of  godHness  asserted 
in  the  gospel. 

I.  This  is  proved  by  the  immutability  of  the  decree  of 
election.  When  anyone  is  born  again  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
justified  in  Christ,  it  is  because  God  had  formed,  from  eternity, 
the  unchangeable  purpose  to  save  that  soul.  The  work  of 
grace  in  it  is  the  mere  carrying  out  of  that  unchangeable  pur- 
pose. As  the  plan  is  unchangeable,  so  must  be  its  execution, 
when  that  execution  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Almighty.  How 
can  argument  be  more  direct?  Heb.  vi  :  17,  18.  God,  willing 
more  abundantly  to  show  unto  the  heirs  of  promise  the  immu- 
tability of  His  counsel,  confirmed  it  by  an  oath,  &c.  See  also 
Matt,  xxiv  :  24;  2  Tim.  ii  :  19  ;  Rom.  viii  :  29  ;  viii  :  33,  &c. 

And   even   though   this   unchangeable  election  were   con- 
Micrht    be    Argued    ditional,  and  made  in  foresight  of  the  believ- 
from   Certain    Fore-    er's   faith   and   obedience,  yet  if  it  has   any 
knowledge.  certainty,   it    must    imply    that   the    believer 

shall  certainly  be  kept  from  finally  falling  away.  If  it  even 
rose  no  higher  than  simple  foreknowledge,  yet  a  foreknowledge 
which  means  anything,  must  be  certain.  If  God  does  not  cer- 
tainly know  whether  a  given  event  shall  take  place  or  not,  then 
He  does  not  foreknow  it  at  all.  But  if  He  certainly  knows 
that  it  shall  occur,  the  occurrence  of  that  event  must  be  with- 
out failure  ;  otherwise  God's  foreknowledge  would  be  false  ! 
So  that  unless  we  impiously  strip  God  of  His  foreknowledge, 
(to  say  nothing  of  His  having  an  all-wise,  almighty,-  and  immu- 
table plan),  we  must  sujjpose  that  the  perseverance  in  a  gra- 
cious state,  of  all  those  whom  He  foresees  will  be  finally  saved, 
is  so  far  necessary  that  they  cannot  finally  fall  away. 

"  The  perseverance  of  believers  follows  from  the  free  and 

2.  Argued  from  Free-    unchangeable    love    of    God    the     Father," 

dom  of  Electing  Love,    which  was  the  ground  of  their  being  chosen 

No  Unforeseen  Provo-    u^to    salvation.      The     Scriptures    make    it 

cation  of  God  Arises.  1    •       i.i     i.   i.i  t        r^    j  j    i. 

plam  that  the  reason  why  God  ever  deter- 
mined to  save  any  man  was  not  His  seeing  in  him  anything 
good,  attractive  or  extenuating,  but  something  without,  known 
to  His  wisdom,  which  was  to  God  a  good  and  wise  reason  to 
bestow  His  eternal  love  on  that  particular  sinner.  Rom.  ix  : 
II  and  16.  This  sovereign  and  unmerited  love  is  the  cause  of 
the  believer's  effectual  calling.  Jer.  xxxi  :  3  ;  Rom.  viii  :  30. 
Now,  as  the  cause  is  unchangeable,  the  effect  will  be  unchange- 
able. That  effect  is,  the  constant  communication  of  grace  to 
the  believer  in  whom  God  hath  begun  a  good  work.  God  was 
not  induced  to  bestow  His  renewing  grace  in  the  first  instance, 
by  anything  which  He  saw,  meritorious  or  attractive,  in  the 
repenting  sinner ;    and  therefore  the    subsequent   absence    of 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY  69I 

everything  good  in  him  would  be  no  new  motive  to  God  for 
withdrawing  His  grace.  When  He  first  bestowed  that  grace, 
He  knew  that  the  sinner  on  whom  He  bestowed  it  was  totally- 
depraved,  and  wholly  and  only  hateful  in  himself  to  the  divine 
holiness ;  and  therefore  no  new  instance  of  ingratitude  or 
unfaithfulness,  of  which  the  sinner  may  become  guilty  after  his 
conversion,  can  be  any  provocation  to  God,  to  change  His 
mind,  and  wholly  withdraw  His  sustaining  grace.  God  knew 
all  this  ingratitude  before.  He  will  chastise  it,  by  temporarily 
withdrawing  His  Holy  Ghost,  or  His  providential  mercies  ;  but 
if  He  had  not  intended  from  the  first  to  bear  with  it,  and  to 
forgive  it  in  Christ,  He  would  not  have  called  the  sinner  by 
His  grace  at  first.  In  a  word,  the  causes  for  which  God  deter- 
mined to  bestow  His  electing  love  on  the  sinner  are  wholly  in 
God,  and  not  at  all  in  the  believer ;  and  hence,  nothing  in  the 
believer's  heart  or  conduct  can  finally  change  that  purpose  of 
love.  Is.  liv  :  10  ;  Rom.  xi  :  29.  Compare  carefully  Rom.  v  : 
8-10  ;  viii  :  32,  with  whole  scope  of  Rom.  viii  :  28-end.  This 
illustrious  passage  is  but  an  argument  for  our  proposition : 
"  What  shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ?" 

This  doctrine  depends  "  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  merit  and 

intercession  of  Jesus  Christ."     As  all  Chris- 
•;.  A  r  Plied     fiom     .•  „  1.1  1  j       r  ^i  j. 

Christ's  Merit.  tians  agree,  the  sole  ground  01  the   accept- 

ance of  believers  is  the  justifying  righteous- 
of  Jesus  Christ.  The  objects  of  God's  eternal  love  were 
"  chosen  in  Christ,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world," 
"  accepted  in  the  beloved,"  and  made  the  recipients  of  saving 
blessings,  on  account  of  what  Christ  does  in  their  stead.  Now, 
this  ground  of  justification,  this  atonement  for  sin,  this  motive 
for  the  bestowal  of  divine  love,  is  perfect.  Christ's  atonement 
surmounts  the  demerit  of  all  possible  sin  or  ingratitude.  His 
righteousness  is  a  complete  price  to  purchase,  the  sinner's  par- 
don and  acceptance.  See  Heb.  ix  :  12;  x  :  12  and  14 ;  Jno.  v  :  24. 
See  with  what  splendid  assurance  and  boldness  Paul  argues 
from  this  ground.  Rom.  viii  :  33  and  34.  Can  one  who  has 
been  fully  justified  in  Christ,  whose  sins  have  been  all  blotted 
out,  irrespective  of  their  heinousness,  by  the  perfect  and  effica- 
cious price  paid  by  Jesus  Christ,  become  again  unjustified,  and 
fall  under  condemnation  without  a  dishonour  done  to  Christ's 
righteousness? 

So   likewise   the  prevalent  and  perpetual  intercession  of 

^,  .  ,   ,  Christ,  founded  on  the  perfect  merit  of  His 

From  Chnst  s  Inter  1  ,1  ,      ,  ■  r     n    r  1 

cession.  work,  ensures  the  salvation  of  all  for  whom 

He  has  once  undertaken.     We  are  assured 

that  the  Father  heareth   Him  always,  when  He  speaks  as  the 

Mediator   of   His    people.     Jno.  xi  142;    Heb.  vii  :  25.       Now, 

after   He  has   uttered   for   His  Selieving  people — for  all   who 

should  believe  Him  through  the  gospel  of  His  apostles — such 

prayers  as  those  of  Jno.  xvii  :  20,  &c.,  24,  must  not  the  answer 


692  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

of  this  request,  or,  in  other  words,  the  certain  final  redemption 
of  all  who  ever  shared  His  intercession,  be  as  sure  as  the  truth 
of  God  ?  But  if  any  man  is  ever  justified,  that  man  has  shared 
the  intercession  of  Christ ;  for  it  was  only  through  this  that  He 
was  first  accepted. 

The  perseverance  of  the  saints  proceeds  "  from  the  abid- 
4.  Argued  from  the  i^g  ^f  the  Spirit,  and  of  the  seed  of  God 
Indwelling  of  the  Holy  within  them."  Every  Christian,  at  the  hour 
°^^*  he  believes,  is  so   united   to  Christ,  that  he 

partakes  of  His  indwelling  Spirit.  This  union  is  a  permanent 
one.  The  moving  cause  for  instituting  it,  God's  free  and  eter- 
nal love,  is  a  permanent  and  unchangeable  cause.  The  indwel- 
ling of  the  Spirit  promised  to  believers  is  a  permanent  and 
abiding  gift,      i  Jno.  ii  :  27. 

His   regenerating   operations   are   spoken   of  as   a  "seal," 

^         ,  and  an  "earnest"  of  our  redemption.     Eph. 

From  the   Seal  and     •      ^^     ^         ^  r^         •      „^       -r-\  c  i- 

Earnest.  ^  •  ^3'  H  !  2  Cor.  1  :  22.      1  he  use  01  a  seal  is 

to  ratify  a  covenant,  and  make  the  fulfilment 
of  it  certain  to  both  parties.  An  "earnest"  (appariiov')  is  a 
small  portion  of  the  thing  covenanted,  given  in  advance,  as  a 
pledge  of  the  certain  intention  to  bestow  the  whole,  at  the 
promised  time.  Thus,  he  who  promised  to  give  a  sum  of 
money  for  some  possession,  at  some  appointed  future  day,  gave 
a  small  sum  in  advance,  when  the  covenant  was  formed,  as  a 
pledge  for  the  rest.  So  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  to 
evqry  believer  who  has  enjoyed  it,  a  seal,  impressing  the  image 
of  Christ  on  the  wax  of  his  softened  heart,  closing  and  certify- 
ing the  engagement  of  God's  love,  to  redeem  the  soul.  It  is 
the  earnest,  or  advance,  made  to  the  soul,  to  engage  God  to 
the  final  bestowal  of  complete  holiness  and  glory.  Unless  the 
final  perseverance  of  believers  is  certain,  it  could  be  no  pledge 
nor  seal.  The  in/erence  is  as  simple  and  as  strong  as  words 
can  express,  that  he  who  has  once  enjoyed  this  seal  and  earnest 
is  thereby  certified  that  God  will  continue  to  give  the  Holy 
Ghost  until  the  end. 

It  is  a  most  low  and  unworthy  estimate  of  the  wisdom  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  His  work  in  the 
not  Fickle.  °  ^  °^  heart,  to  suppose  that  He  will  begin  the  work 
now,  and  presently  desert  it ;  that  the  vital 
spark  of  heavenly  birth  is  an  igjiis  fatniis,  burning  for  a  short 
season,  and  then  expiring  in  utter  darkness  ;  that  the  spiritual 
life  communicated  in  the  new  birth,  is  a  sort  of  spasmodic  or 
galvanic  vitality,  giving  the  outward  appearance  of  life  in  the 
dead  soul,  and  then  dying.  Not  such  is  the  seed  of  God  within 
us.  Jno.  v  :  24.  "  Verily,  verily  I  say  unto  you  :  He  that 
heareth  INIy  word,  and  believ^th  on  Him  that  sent  ]Mc,  hath 
everlasting  life."  John  iii  :  15  ;  vi  :  54.  The  principle  then 
iinplanted,  is  a  never-dying  principle.  In  every  believer  an 
eternal  spiritual  life  is  begun.     If  all  did  not  persevere  in  Jioli- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  693 

ness,  there  would  be  some  in  whom  there  was  a  true  spiritual 
life,  but  not  everlasting.  The  promise  would  not  be  true.  See 
also  I  John  iii  :  9 ;  i  Pet.  i  :  23. 

Our  doctrine  follows,  also,  "  from  the  nature  of  the  Coven- 
ant of  Grace."  God  did,  from  eternity,  make 
Cove4'm  of  Gra^e.*^  w>th  His  Son  a  gracious  covenant,  engaging, 
in  return  for  the  Son's  humiliation,  to  give 
Him  the  souls  of  all  who  were  chosen  in  Him  before  the  foun- 
dation of  the  world,  "  that  they  should  be  holy  and  without 
blame  before  Him  in  love."  This  covenant  is  an  everlasting 
one.  Jer.  xxxii  :  40.  It  is  an  unchangeable  covenant.  Ps. 
Ixxxix  :  34,  (spoken  of  the  second  David).  The  sole  condition 
of  the- covenant  is  Christ's  work  for  His  chosen  people.  Heb. 
X  :  14.  Now,  the  administration  of  such  a  covenant  most 
plainly  requires  that  there  shall  be  no  uncertainty  in  its  results. 
If  one  of  those,  whose  sins  Christ  bore,  ever  fell  into  final  con- 
demnation, the  contract  would  be  proved  temporary,  change- 
-able  and  false.  To  derive  the  full  force  of  this  argument,  we 
must  again  distinguish  between  the  Covenant  of  Grace  and  the 
Covenant  of  Redemption.  We  argue  from  the  latter.  The 
Son  (not  believers)  is  the  "party  of  the  second  part." 
Because  he  is  omnipotent,  holy  and  faithful,  the  compact  can- 
not fail.  Again  ;  in  this  covenant,  the  only  procuring  condition 
is  one  that  has  been  already  fulfilled,  Christ's  work  and  sacri- 
fice. Hence  the  contract  is  closed  and  irrevocable.  Hence  it 
must  ensure  the  redemption  of  its  beneficiaries. 

On  the  eternal  certainty  of  this  covenant  is  founded  the 
This  Covenant    faithfulness  of  the  gospel  offer,  pledging  God 
Pledges  Grace  to  Per-    to   every  sinner  who    believes    and    repents, 
^^'^^''^*  that  he  shall  through  Christ  receive  saving 

grace  ;  and  among  those  gracious  influences  thus  pledged  with 
eternal  truth  to  the  believer,  from  the  moment  he  truly  believes, 
is  persevering  grace.  Jer.  xxxii  :  40 ;  (proved  to  be  the  gospel 
pledge  by  Heb.  viii  :  10};  Is.  liv  :  10;  Hos.  ii  :  19  and  20;  i 
Thess.  v  :  23,  24 ;  Jno.  x  :  27  ;  i  Pet.  i  :  5  ;  Rom.  viii  :  end. 
These  are  a  few  from  the  multitude  of  promises,  assuring  us  of 
our  final  safety  from  every  possible  influence,  when  once  they 
are  truly  in  Christ. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  force  of  these  and  all  similar 
passages  has  been  met,  by  asserting  that  in 
all  gospel  promises  there  is  a  condition  im- 
plied, viz  :  That  they  shall  be  fulfilled,  provided  the  behever 
does  not  backsHde,  on  his  part,  from  his  gospel  privileges.  But 
is  this  all  which  these  seemingly  precious  words  mean  ? 
Then  they  mean  nothing.  To  him  who  knows  his  own  heart, 
what  is  that  promise  of  security  worth,  which  offers  him  no 
certainty  to  secure  him  against  his  own  weakness  ?  All  "  his 
sufficiency  is  of  God."  See  also  Rom.  vii  :  21.  If  his  enjoy- 
ment of  the  promised  grace  is  suspended  upon  his  own  perse- 


694  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

verance  in  cleaving  to  it,  then  his  apostasy  is  not  a  thing 
possible,  or  probable,  but  certain.  There  is  no  hope  in  the 
gospel.  And  when  such  a  condition  is  thrust  into  such  a  prom- 
ise as  that  of  Jno.  x  :  27 :  "  None  shall  pluck  them  out  of  INIy 
hand,"  provided  they  do  not  choose  to  let  themselves  be 
plucked  away ;  are  we  to  suppose  that  Christ  did  not  know 
that  common  Bible  truth,  that  the  only  way  any  spiritual 
danger  can  assail  any  soul  successfully,  is  by  persuasion  :  that 
unless  the  adversary  can  get  the  consent  of  the  believer's  free 
will,  he  cannot  harm  him  ?  Was  it  not  thus  that  Adam  was 
ruined  ?  Is  there  any  other  way  by  which  a  soul  can  be 
plucked  away  from  God  ?  Surely  Jesus  knew  this  ;  and  if  this 
supposed  condition  is  to  be  understood,  then  this  precious  prom- 
ise would  be  but  a  worthless  and  pompous  truism.  "  Your 
souls  shall  never  be  destroyed,  unless  in  a  given  way,"  and  that 
way,  the  only  and  the  common  way,  in  which  souls  are  ever 
destroyed.  "  You  shall  never  fall,  as  long  as  you  stand  up." 
But  to  thoroughly  close  the  whole  argument,  we  have  only 

to  remark,  that  the  promise  in  Jer,  xxxii :  40, 
elusive.^'"'"   ^°     °""    which   is    most    absolutely    prcfved    by  Heb. 

viii  :  10,  &c.,  to  be  the  gospel  covenant,  most 
expressly  engages  God  to  preserve  believers  from  this  very 
thing — their  own  backsliding.  Not  only  does  He  engage  that 
He  will  not  depart  from  them,  but  "  He  will  put  His  fear  in 
their  hearts,  so  that  they  shall  not  depart  from  Him." 

Other  arguments    exist,   from    independent   assertions    of 
6.  Independent  Ar-    Scriptures.     It  used  to  be  common  with  the 
guments  for  Persever-    Calvinistic  divines  to  advance  the  joy  of  the 
^^^^'  angels  over  repenting  sinners,  as  a  proof  of 

their  perseverance.  The  idea  was,  that  if  their  state  in  grace 
were  mutable,  these  wise  and  grand  creatures  would  not  have 
attached  so  much  importance  to  it.  To  me  this  reasoning 
always  appeared  inconclusive.  We  have  seen  good  Christians 
sometimes  rejoicing  very  sincerely  over  what  turned  out  to  be 
a  spurious  conversion,  because  they  supposed  it  to  be  genuine. 
Now,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  angels  are  always  infallible  in 
their  judgments  of  appearances,  any  more  than  we  :  although 
far  wiser.  Besides,  if  some  true  converts  did  fall  from  grace, 
the  angels  would  still  know  that  those  who  finally  reach  heaven 
must  be  sought  among  the  sinners  who  experience  conversion 
on  earth.  A  much  more  conclusive  argument  may  be  drawn 
from  those  passages,  which  explain  the  apostasy  of  seeming 
converts,  in  consistency  with  the  perseverance  of  true  saints. 
One  of  these  is  found  in  2  Pet.  ii  :  22.  Here  the  apostate  pro- 
fessor is  an  unclean  animal,  only  outwardly  cleansed ;  a  "  sow 
that  was  washed;"  its  nature  is  not  turned  into  a  lamb;  and 
this  is  the  explanation  of  its  return  to  the  mire.  A  still 
stronger  one  is  i  Jno.  ii  :  19.  Here  the  departure  of  apostates 
is  explained  by  the  fact,  that  their  union  to  Christ  and  His  peo- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  695 

pie  never  was  real ;  because  had  it  been  real  they  "  no  doubt 
would  have  continued  with  us ;  "  and  their  apostasy  was  per- 
missively  designed  by  God  to  "  manifest "  the  fact  that  they 
never  had  been  true  believers. 

Another  proof  presents  itself  in  the  parable  of  the  sower. 
Matt,  xiii  :  6  and  21.  The  stony-ground-hearer  withers,  because 
he  "hath  no  root  in  himself"  Still  another  maybe  found  in 
2  Tim.  ii  :  19.  There  the  Apostle,  referring  to  such  temporary 
professors  as  Hymenaeus  and  Philetus,  explains  that  their  apos- 
tasy implied  no  uncertainty  as  to  the  constitution  of  the  body 
of  Christ's  redeemed  :  because  God  knew  all  the  time  who 
were  truly  His  ;  and  the  foundation  of  His  purpose  concerning 
their  salvation  stood  immovable  amidst  all  the  changes  and 
apostasies  which  startle  blind  men. 

With  reference  to  all  objections  founded  on  the  cases  of 
Solomon,  David,  Peter,  Judas  and  such  like, 
plained.^ '  '"^^  ""'  ^  reply  briefly,  that  the  explanation  is  either 
that  of  John's  first  Epistle  2  :  19,  that  they 
never  had  true  grace  to  lose,  or  else,  the  history  contains 
proof  that  their  apostasy  was  neither  total  nor  final,  though 
grievous.  In  Peter's  case,  Christ  says,  Luke  xxii :  32,  that 
"  Satan  desired  to  sift  him  like  wheat,  but  He  prayed  for  him 
that  his  faith  should  not  fail."  Peter's  faith,  therefore,  did  not 
fail,  though  his  duty  did.  So  the  prayer  of  David,  Ps.  li :  ii, 
12,  shows  that  he  was  a  true  saint  before  and  after  his  sin. 
That  the  principle  of  true  grace  can  exist,  and  can  be  for  a 
time  so  foully  obscured,  as  in  David's  case,  is  indeed  a  startling 
and  alarming  truth.  Yet  does  not  the  experience  of  society, 
and  of  our  own  hearts  '^"bstantiate  the  view  ? 

Here  let  "s  return  to  notice  the  view  of  those  who  deem  it 
G^f^r  to  say,  that  David's  grace  was  all  extinct  when  he  com- 
•  tted  these  crimes ;  lest  the  opposite  doctrine  should  en- 
courage carnal  security.'  We  have  seen  that  several  of  our 
scriptural  proofs  refute  the  idea  of  a  complete  extinction  and 
subsequent  restoration  of  spiritual  life.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
the  permanency  of  that  principle,  and  with  the  nature  of  the 
Spirit's  indwelling,  seal,  and  earnest.  But  the  licentious  result 
feared  is  effectually  warded  off  by  a  proper  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures.  The  true  believer's  hope  of  personal  acceptance  is 
always  obscured,  just  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  his  back- 
slidings.  Hence,  if  he  listens  to  the  Scriptures,  he  cannot  both 
indulge  his  backslidings  and  a  carnal  security.  Ror  he  is  ex- 
pressly told  in  the  Bible,  that  there  is  a  counterfeit  faith  and 
repentance ;  and  that  the  fruits  of  consistent  holiness  are  the 
only  criterion  by  which  the  professor  himself,  or  anybody  else, 
except  the  Omniscient  one,  can  know  an  apparent  faith  to  be 
genuine.  Hence  to  the  backslider,  the  hypothesis  that  his  pre- 
vious graces,  however  plausible,  were  spurious  and  counterfeit 
is  always   more  reasonable  than  the  other  hypothesis,  that  true 


696  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

faith  could  go  so  far  astray.  And  if  when  sinning  grievously, 
He  could  be  capable  of  making  David's  case  an  argument  of 
carnal  security  in  sin  ;  this  would  complete  the  proof  of  his 
deadness  .  David's  case  is  an  encouragement  to  the  backslider 
to  return,  provided  he  has  David's  deep  contrition.  See  Ps. 
xxxii,  and  li. 

Your   commentaries   and   other  text  books   will   give   you 

those  detailed  explanations  which  you  need, 

Obiecdon.    ^^"*^^    ^"    °^  ^^^  texts  advanced  by  Arminians  against 

our  doctrine.     I   may  say  that  the  two  loca 

palmaria  on  which  they  rely  chiefly  care  Heb.  vi :  4-6,  and  Ezek. 

xviii  :  24-29.     The  solution  of  these  meets  all  the  rest. 

Of  the  first  we  may  briefly  remark,  that  it  does  not  appear 
the  spiritual  endowments  there  described  of 
the  apostate,  amount  to  a  true  state  of  grace. 
A  detailed  criticism  and  comparison  of  the  traits  "  being  en- 
lightened," &c.,  will  show  that  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
Scriptures,  they  describe,  not  a  regenerate  state,  but  one  of 
deep  conviction  and  concern,  great  privilege,  with  perhaps  char- 
isms  of  tongues  or  healings.  The  exemplars  are  to  be  found 
in  such  men  as  Balaam,  Simon  ]\Iagus,  and  Demas.  And  this 
is  most  consistent  wdth  the  Apostle's  scope.  The  terms  here, 
if  meant  to  describe  ordinary  saving  conversion,  would  at  least 
be  most  singular  and  unusual.  They  are  evidently  vague,  and 
intentionally  so  :  because  God  does  not  care  to  enable  us  to  de- 
cide exactly  how  near  we  may  go  to  the  impassable  line  of 
grieving  His  Spirit,  and  yet  be  forgiven. 

With  reference  to  the  passage  from  Ezekiel,  it  could  only 
be  claimed  by  Arminians,  in  virtue  of  great  in- 
attention to.  the  prophet's  object  in  the  pass- 
age. Ezekiel's  mission  was  to  call  Israel  (especially  the  people 
in  captivity  in  Mesopotamia)  to  repentance.  He  points  to  their 
calamities  and  the  destruction  of  the  larger  part  of  their  nation, 
as  proof  of  their  great  guilt.  They  attempt  to  evad  his  charge, 
by  pleading  that  "their  teeth  were  set  on  edge,  because  their 
fathers  had  eaten  sour  grapes."  God  answers,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  chapter,  that  this  explanation  of  their  calamities  is  un- 
tenable ;  because  (while  much  of  His  providence  over  men  does 
visit  the  father's  sins  upon  sinful  children)  the  guilt  of  sinful  fath- 
ers is  never,  in  His  theocracy,  and  according  to  the  covenant  of 
Horeb,  visited  on  righteous  children.  He  then  goes  farther, 
and  reminds  them  that  not  only  did  He  always  restore  prosper- 
ity, in  the  theocracy,  as  soon,  as  an  obedient  generation  suc- 
ceeded a  rebellious  one  ;  but  even  more,  as  soon  as  a  rebellious 
man  truly  repented,  he  was  forgivea;  just  as  when  a  righteous 
man  apostatizes,  he  is  punished.  It  would  appear,  therefore, 
that  the  thing  of  which  the  prophet  is  speaking  is  not  a  state 
of  grace  at  all ;  but  the  outward,  formal,  and  civic  decency  of 
a  citizen  of  the  theocracy ;  and  that  the  punishments  into  which 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  69/ 

such  a  man  fell  on  lapsing  into  rebellion,  v/ere  temporal  calam- 
ities. But  farther,  the  whole  passage  is  hypothetical.  It  merely 
supposes  a  pair  of  cases.  If  the  transgressor  repents,  he  shall 
be  forgiven.  Does  the  prophet  mean  to  teach  that  any  do  sav- 
ingly repent,  in  whom  God  does  not  purpose  to  work  repent- 
ance? Let  ch.  xxxvi :  26,  27,  and  xxxvii :  i-io,  answer.  So, 
does  He  mean  to  teach  that  any  actually  fall  into  rebellion,  who 
share  the  grace  of  God  ?  Let  ch.  xxxvi :  27,  &c.,  again  answer. 
There  is  one  general  element  of  objection  in  all  these  texts; 

that  when   God  warns  the  righteous,  the  be- 
General  Answer.  1  •  o  ■      i.    i.i        1  r  a. 

liever,  &c.,  aganist  the  dangers  or  apostasy  ; 

or  when  He  stimulates  him  to  zeal  in  holy  living  by  the  thought 
of  those  dangers,  God  thereby  clearly  implies  that  believers  may 
apostatise.  The  answer  is:  Naturally  speaking,  so  he  may. 
The  certainty  that  he  will  not,  arises,  not  from  the  strength  of  a 
regenerated  heart,  but  from  God's  secret,  unchangeable  purpose 
concerning  the  believer ;  which  purpose  He  executes  towards, 
and  in  him,  by  moral  means  consistent  with  the  creature's  free 
agency.  Among  these  appropriate  motives  are  these  very 
warnings  of  dangers  and  wholesome  fears  about  apostasy. 
Therefore,  God's  application  of  these  motives  to  the  regenerate 
free  agent,  proves  not  at  all  that  it  is  God's  secret  purpose  to 
let  him  apostatise.  They  are  a  part  of  that  plan  by  which  God 
intends  to  ensure  that  he  shall  not.  Compare  carefully  Acts 
xxvii  :  22,  23,  24,  25,  with  31. 

In  conclusion,  we  believe  that  all  the  supposed  licentious 
results  of  the  doctrine  of  persev.erance  result 
SanSyTni  ^""^"^^^  from  misapprehension  ;  and  that  its  true  ten- 
dencies are  eminently  encouraging  and  sanc- 
tifying, (a.)  How  can  the  intelligent  Bible  Christian  be  encour- 
aged to  sin,  by  a  doctrine  which  assures  him  of  a  perseverance 
in  holiness,  if  he  is  a  true  believer?  (b.)  So  far  as  a  rational 
self-love  is  a  proper  motive  for  a  sanctified  mind,  this  doctrine 
leaves  it  in  full  force ;  because  when  the  Arminian  would  be  led 
by  a  backsliding,  to  fear  he  had  fallen  from  grace,  the  Calvinist 
would  be  led,  just  as  much,  to  fear  he  never  had  had  any  grace ; 
a  fear  much  more  wholesome  and  searching  than  the  erring 
Arminian's.  For  this  alarmed  Calvinist  would  see,  that,  while 
Tie  had  been  flattering  himself  he  was  advancing  heavenward, 
he  was,  in  fact,  all  the  time  in  the  high  road  to  hell ;  and  so 
now,  if  he  would  not  be  damned,  he  must  make  a  new  begin- 
ning, and  lay  better  foundations  than  his  old  ones  (not  like  the 
alarmed  Arminian,  merely  set  about  repairing  the  same  old 
ones),  (c.)  Certainty  .of  success,  condition  on  honest  efforts,  is 
the  very  best  stimulus  to  active  exertion.  Witness  the  skilful 
general  encouraging  his  army,  (d.)  Last :  Such  a  gift  of  re- 
demption as  the  Calvinist  represents-  is  far  nobler  and  more 
gracious,  and  hence  elicits  more  love  and  gratitude,  which  are 
the  noblest  motives,  the  strongest  and  best. 


698  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Just  SO  far  as  the  Calvinist  is  enabled  scripturally  to  hope 
that  he  is  now  born  again,  he  is,  to  that  ex- 
trine°™^°''*  °^  ^^^  ^°^'  ^^"^'  entitled  to  hope  that  his  triumph  is  sure  ; 
that  death  and  hell  are  disarmed,  and  that 
his  heaven  is  awaiting  his  efforts.  To  him  who  knows  the 
weakness  of  the  human  heart,  and  the  power  of  our  spiritual 
enemies,  the  Arminian's  adoption,  beset  by  the  constant  liability 
to  fall,  would  bring  little  consolation  indeed.  It  is  love  and 
confidence,  not  selfish  fear,  which  most  effectually  stimulates 
Christian  effort.  Let  the  student  see  how  St.  Paul  puts  this  in 
I  Cor,  XV  :  58. 


LECTURE  LIX. 

THE  ASSURANCE  OF  GRACE   AND  SALVATION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Wliat    is   the  disrinction   made  by  the  Westminster  Assembly,  between   this 
grace,  and  the  assurance  of  Faith  ? 

Conf.   of  Faith,  ch.  i8.      Ridgley,   Qu.   So,  §  i.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xv,  Qu.  17, 

2.  State  the  Doctrine  of  Rome,  concerning  assurance  of  grace  and  Salvation, 
and  her  motives  herein  :    Of  early  Reformers  ;  and  of  our  Standards. 

Council  of  Trent.  Sess.  6,  ch.  9,  and  Canones,  13,  14.  Bellarmine,  de  Justif. 
bk.  iii,  chs.  6,  8.  Calvin,  Inst.  bk.  iii,  ch.  2.  Com.  on  Rom.  iv  :  16  ;  viii  :  34. 
Genevan  Cat.  p.  137.  Niemyer.  Augsburg  Conf.  g  5,  and  20,  Dorner's 
Hist.  Prot.  Theol.,  Vol,  i,  §  i,  ch.  4,  g  a.  Louis  Le  Blanc  against  Bossuet. 
Turrettin.  as  above.     Hill.  bk.  v.  ch.  2.     Conf.  §  3. 

3.  Is  the  assurance  of  grace  and  :;alvation  of  the  essence  of  Saving  Faith  ? 

See  Calvin,  Turretdn  and  Conf.  as  above.  Ridgley,  Qu.  81.  Dick,  Lect.  68. 
So.  Presb.  Rev.  Jan,  1872.,  Art.  i.  Theol.  of  Plym.  Brethren.  Hill,  as  above. 
Sir  W.  Hamilton,  on  Unconscious  Modifications  of  the  Mind. 

4.  Prove   that  this  assurance  is  attainable  ;  and    should  be  the   aim  of  every 
Behever. 

Turrettin,  as  above.     Ridgley,  Qu.  80. 

5.  By  what  means  is  it  to  be  sought  ? 

See  Rom.  vii  :  16,  with  Calv.,  Scott,  Hodge,  &c.,  in  Loco.  Watson's  Theo' 
Inst.  ch.  22,  ^  2..  Hill,  as  above.  J.  Newton's  Sermon,  20.  H.  B'^*  .,1  s 
"Way of  Peace,"  pp.  23,  24,  39,  262.  Waymarks  in  Wilderness,  V  '.  .ii,  pp, 
245,  263.  Theol.  of  Plym.  Brethren,  as  above.  Chalmers'  T*  -  -.  Inst.  Vol. 
iich.  10. 

6.  Reply  to  objections  ;  and  especially  to  tlie  fear  of  its  fo='_rmg  Carnal  Security. 
Same  authorities,  and  Turrettin,  Loc.  iv,  Qu.  13.    P' ..c,  Lect.  78. 

t^npHE  Assurance  of  Grace  and  S'.,'vation"  is  "an  infallible 

assurance  of  faith,"  that  th':  cabjcctis  in  a  state  of  grace, 

,  ^  ^  . .  and   will  be  .-^ved.     The  saving   faith  which 

I.  Detmitions.  r^       c       •  ^^        ■  ■        .-  - 

TT  '^cnte^cion  fiiscrunmates  Irom  mis,  is  the 

direct  action  oi  a  full  and  cordial  belief  in  the  Gospel  promise, 
with  a  rereiving  and  resting  on  Christ  from  the  heart.  The  lat- 
ter, every  true  believer  has,  except  when  confused  temporarily 
by  the  extreme  buffetings  of  temptation;  the  former  is  the 
complementary  attainment  of  mature  and  vigorous  faith.   Some 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  699 

works  present  us  the  same  distinction  by  the  phrases  :  "  Assur- 
ance of  Hope;"  ''Assurance  of  Faith."  Others  of  the  Re- 
formed divines  object  much  to  this  nomenclature,  as  being  of  a 
Jesuit  origin.  They  argue,  also,  that  assurance  of  hope  must 
always  accompany  assurance  of  faith,  because  there  must  always 
be  some  hope,  where  there  is  any  belief  of  the  heart.  They 
ask:  How  is  hope  defined?  As  desire,  with  expectation.  Now, 
if  a  man  has  any  belief  of  the  heart,  he  desires.  So,  hope  and 
faith,  and  the  assurance  of  each,  must  be  inseparable.  This 
reasoning  is  employed,  both  against  the  pair  of  terms  as  a  no- 
menclature ;  and  (by  others)  against  the  very  discrimination, 
which  our  Confession  asserts.  See  here,  sa.y  they,  proof,  that 
the  Westminster  Confession  was  wrong,  and  Calvin  right :  and 
that  there  is  is  no  faith  where  there  are  not  both  kinds  of  Tzkr^po- 
(fopia.  But  the  solution  is  extremely  easy.  No  supporter  of 
the  Westminster  view  denies,  that  even  the  weakest  true  faith 
is  attended  with  an  element  of  hope,  more  or  less  consciously 
felt ;  all  we  assert  is :  that  there  may  be  saving  faith,  and  yet 
not  a  Tilr^poifopia  sATZcdo^.  Others,  as  we  intimated,  seem  shy  of 
this  nomenclature,  because  of  its  Jesuit  origin.  They  indeed, 
used,  as  they  invented  it  mala  fide  :  They  represented  the  as- 
surance of  hope  as  grounded  partly  on  the  believer's  own  pious 
disposition,  which  they  always  assert  to  be  mutable.  Such  an 
affection  would  not  deserve  to  be  called  an  assurance.  But  let 
us  represent  to  ourselves  an  assurance  of  hope  grounded  "  up- 
on the  divine  truth  of  the  promises  of  salvation,  the  inward  ev- 
idence of  the  graces  unto  which  these  promises  are  made,  and 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption  witnessing  with  our  spir- 
its that  we  are  the  children  of  God  ;"  and  I  see  not  why  the 
phraseology  should  be  rejected.  It  is,  indeed,  entirely  scrip- 
tural. See  Owen  on  Heb.  vi  :  ii,  and  Poole's  Synopsis  on  Col. 
ii  :  2 ;  Heb.  xi  :  i.  Here  we  have  the  Tilripoipop'ta  tr^^  auviaecoCy 
and  the  -/j^poifopta  s.)-'tdo:;.  Does  not  the  apostle  distinguish 
between  the  assurance  of  the  understanding  and  the  assurance 
of  hope  ?  Again,  it  is  objected,  that  since  the  faith  and  the  hope 
have  the  same  object,  the  blessings  of  redemption  and  the  same 
warrant,  the  promises  of  God,  they  must  be  inseparable.  I  have 
admitted,  that  some  degree  of  hope,  perhaps  scarcely  conscious 
hope,  is  involved  in  all  true  faith.  But  the  answer  is  in  this  fact. 
The  promises  are  always  practically  conditioned  on  an  instru- 
mental condition;  whence  the  assured  expectation  of  enjoying 
them,  the  essential  element  of  the  -Ar^poipopia  s/.zcdo^,  must  be 
practically  suspended  on  the  consciousness  that  the  terms  are 
fulfilled.  The  promises  are  assuredly  mine,  provided  I  have 
genuine  faith.  (This  expresses  the  -Ar^poifopia  £A~cdo^.)  But  I 
know  that  there  is  a  spurious  faith.  Hence,  although  I  have 
some  i/-.'c  from  the  moment  I  embrace  that  truth,  I  do  not 
have  the  7iAr^po(foiica  s/.-coo-,  until  I  have  eliminated  the  doubt 
whether  my  faith  is,  possibly,  of  the  spurious  kind. 


700  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

Many  quibbles  have  been  offered  by  Papists  and  rational- 
ists, to  show  that  neither  of  these  (and 
bilgtflSirranS"'"  especially  not  the  assurance  of  hope)  can 
rise  so  high  as  to  deserve  the  name  of  an  in- 
fallible assurance.  If  the  latter  did,  it  is  urged,  it  should  give 
a  certainty  of  heaven  equal  to  the  certainty  of  our  own  exist- 
ence, a  certainty  admitting  of  no  degrees,  and  no  increase  by 
additions  of  subsequent  evidence.  But  what  sober  believer  can 
honestly  claim  this  ?  Now,  the  answer  to  all  this  is  easily  found 
in  an  appeal  to  common  sense.  What  does  a  man  mean  when 
he  says  he  is  sure  of  a  thing?  That  he  clearly  sees  some  evi- 
dence of  its  truth,  which  mounts  above  even  the  highest  proba- 
bility, to  demonstration.  Any  valid  portion  of  such  evidence  is 
proper  ground  of  certain  conviction.  Does  this  imply  that  the 
evidence  cannot  be  increased,  so  that  the  certainty  shall  have  a 
wider  basis  ?  By  no  means.  So,  although  it  was  certainty 
before,  it  now  becomes  a  more  satisfactory  certainty.  Again : 
Assurance  of  faith,  and  still  more,  assurance  of  hope,  embrace 
as  elements  of  evidence,  the  state  of  the  soul's  own  moral  affec- 
tions. The  latter,  for  instance,  is  based  upon  a  consciousness 
of  the  exercise  of  trust,  love,  penitence,  submission,  and  peace. 
Hence,  to  every  one  who  knows  human  nature,  it  is  manifest 
that,  however  demonstrative  may  be  such  evidence  in  its  very 
highest  and  purest  examples,  the  certainty  based  upon  it  will 
be  much  more  felt  and  conscious,  at  some  times  than  at  others, 
because  the  actings  of  those  holy  emotions,  and  the  soul's  atten- 
tion to  and  consciousness  of  their  actings,  are  more  lively  at 
times,  than  at  others.  Will  not  the  soul,  after  it  is  actually  in 
heaven,  have  more  lively  attention  to,  and  consciousness  of,  its 
present  blessedness  at  some  times  than  at  others  ?  Does  not 
the  bereaved  widow,  who  knows  her  loss  only  too  well  at  all 
times,  feel  it  far  more  sensibly  at  some  times  than  at  others  ? 
Third  :  it  is  a  most  incorrect  analysis  which  either  banishes  the 
will  from  among  the  causes  of  belief,  in  cases  of  moral  truths 
and  evidences  presented  to  the  mind,  or  which  denies  that  the 
certainty  arising  of  such  moral  truths  can  be  intellectually  cor- 
rect ;  because  there  is  a  voluntary  element  in  it.  In  the  case  of 
all  moral  objects  of  belief,  conviction  is  far  from  being  a  bare 
intellectual  result ;  the  state  of  the  will  powerfully  modifies  it. 
(See  my  analysis  of  Saving  Faith).  So  obvious  is  this,  that 
Des  Cartes  actually  places  belief  among  the  emotional  states 
of  the  soul.  And  yet,  the  rectitude  of  the  state  of  will,  which 
concurs  in  producing  a  given  moral  conviction  of  mind,  may 
itself  be  the  object  of  the  mind's  certain  cognition.  So  that 
the  mind,  while  aware  that  this  mental  conviction  has  been  pro- 
duced in  part  by  a  state  of  will,  as  well  as  by  a  light  of  evi- 
dence, shall  also  be  certain  that  the  will  acted  aright  in  that 
case  ;  and  hence,  the  given  belief,  though  in  part  a  result  of  the 
affections,  will   be   felt   to   be   intellectuallv  as  valid  as  though 


OF    LECTURES    IX    THEOLOGY.  ^OF 

it  were  a  cold  truth  of  abstract  mathematics.  If  the  student 
will  remember,  that  the  belief  of  this  proposition,  "  I  am  now 
in  a  state  of  grace,"  or  "  I  am  not,"  is  just  one  of  those  moral 
propositions,  concerning  which  the  state  of  will  is  most  influ- 
ential, he  will  see  the  application  of  these  principles.  It  will 
appear  why  the  intellectual  belief  of  such  propositions  should 
vary  in  its  felt  strength  ;  viz  :  because  the  active  and  voluntary 
part  of  its  elements  vary.  And  it  will  appear  that  this  degree 
of  fluctuation  (so  to  speak)  is  not  at  all  incompatible  with  cer- 
tainty, and  a  proper  intellectual  basis  of  evidence.  To  dispute 
this,  is  as  though  one  should  say  that,  because  the  waters  of  the 
sea  do  not  bear  up  the  boat  with  the  same  immobility  with 
which  a  stone  pedestal  bears  its  statue,  therefore  the  waters  do 
not  sustain  the  boat.  The  assurance  of  hope,  in  the  breast  of 
the  true  and  eminent  saint,  is  a  certainty  at  its  lowest  ebbs ;  at 
its  higher  floods,  it  is  both  solid  and  joyful. 

That  the  saint  ought  to  know  he  is  a  saint  as  clearly  as  he 
Assurance  a  Moral  knows  that  he  breathes,  is  simply  playing 
Conviction,  not  a  Sense  with  words.  Who  does  not  know  that  sen- 
Perception.  sational  consciousness  has  a  palpable  element 

about  it,  which  belongs  to  no  intellectual  belief,  not  even  that  of 
the  exact  sciences  ?  The  scholar  knows  that  "  the  square  of 
the  hypothenuse  is  equal,"  &c.  ;  but  he  does  not  feel  it,  as  he 
feels  his  existence, 

Romanists  deny  that  a  certain  assurance  of  hope  can  be 
attained,  except  in  the  case  of  those  eminent 
To'chinf  AssS°ancT^  ^^i^ts  and  ascetics,  to  whom  God  gives  it  by 
special  revelation — as  to  Stephen  and  Paul. 
In  other  cases,  they  judge  it  not  attainable,  not  to  be  sought  after, 
and  not  beneficial,  even  if  attainable.  Their  motive  is,  obviously, 
to  retain  that  power  of  priestcraft  over  souls,  by  which  they  may 
make  gain  of  their  absolutions,  masses,  indulgences,  &c.  The 
soul  completely  and  finally  justified  in  Christ,  and  assured 
thereof  by  grace,  would  be  independent.     2  Cor.  iii  :  17. 

The  earlier  Reformers,  having  learned  to  abhor  this  traf- 
^  ,  ,  ^      .       ficking   in   the   peace  of  immortal   souls,  felt 

Reformers   Doctrine,    •  1 1     j     .        .  i      ^ i      >  •  r   .i 

impelled  to  teach  that  assurance  is  of  the 
essence  of  saving  faith,  (though  compelled  to  modify  their 
assertion,  in  order  to  include  even  Bible  saints).  Thus,  Calvin, 
Institutes,  Bk.  iii,  ch.  2,  §  7  :  "  Faith  is  a  steady  and  certain 
knowledge  of  the  divine  benevolence  towards  us,"  &c.  Com. 
on  Rom.  viii  :  t6.  "  Sfat  itaqiie  Sententia,  Neminem  posse 
nomeiiari  filhmi  Dei,  qui  Jion  se  talem  agnoscat."  Of  this,  more 
anon. 

The  earlier  Arminians   (of   Holland)  taught  that  certain 
.  .  .          assurance  of  final  salvation  is  not  attainable 

in  this  life  ;  and  that  to  doubt  thereof  is  salu- 
tary, and  conducive  to  humility.  So  far  as  assurance  is  predi- 
cated   of  our    final    perseverance,  and    our    election,  the    later 


702  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Arminians  of  Wesley's  school  must  of  course  concur.  But 
they  teach,  as  one  of  their  most  distinctive  points,  that  an  assu- 
rance, of  present  conversion  (followed  by  some  hope  of  final 
salvation)  is  not  only  possible,  but  essential  to  every  true  be- 
liever. And  this  is  the  immediate  teaching  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  the  heart,  without  the  Word  or  self-examination.  Yet  assu- 
rance of  hope  is  not  made  by  them  of  the  essence  of  faith. 
First,  say  they,  come  repentance  and  faith,  then  justification, 
then  regeneration,  then  this  inwrought  consciousness  of  adop- 
tion— faith  itself  being  defined  as  a  believing  and  embracing  of 
the  gospel.  Here  we  have  the  mystico-scholastic  notion  of  a 
revealed  and  immediate  witness,  borrowed  from  Rome  through 
a  Moravian  medium  by  Wesley,  and  asserted  as  the  privilege 
and  attainment  of  every  true  convert.  A  still  more  direct  his- 
torical channel  may  be  found  for  the  transmission  of  this  doc- 
trine into  the  Wesleyan  System  from  the  scholastic  theology  of 
the  Romish  monks.  Wesley  was  a  great  admirer  of  Thomas  a 
Kempis,  of  whose  work  he  published  an  edition.  Here,  in  the 
experience  of  this  mystical  scholastic,  the  idea  appears  in  full 
form. 

The  Calvinistic  world  has  now  generally  settled  down  upon 

the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
mi?sto-' Assembly.^  ^*"    ^^^^  assurance  of  hope  is  not  of  the  essence 

of  saving  faith ;  so  that  many  believers  may 
be  justified  though  not  having  the  former:  and  may  remain 
long  without  it;  but  yet  an  infallible  assurance,  founded  on  a 
comparison  of  their  hearts  and  lives  with  Scripture,  and  the 
teaching  and  light  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  and  in  the 
Word,  is  the  privilege,  and  should  be  the  aim  of  every  true 
believer.  Yet,  this  assurance,  while  both  scriptural,  reason- 
able and  spiritual,  and  thus  solid,  may  be  more  sensibly  felt  at 
sometimes,  and  may  even  be  temporarily  lost  through  sin, 
according  to  the  remarks  of  our  section  I. 

Before  proceeding  to  argue  this,  let  us  briefly  show  (see 

3.  Assurance  not  of   ^ect.  on  Faith,)  what  we  have  again  asserted; 

the  essence  of  Faith,    that  assurance  of  hope  is  not  of  the  essence 

proved  (a)  by  experi-    of   saving  faith.     First :    not  only  do   some, 

yea  many,  who  give  other  excellent  eviden- 
ces by  their  fruits,  in  our  days  lack  this  assurance ;  but  some 
Bible  saints  lacked  it  at  times.  See  Ps.  xxxi  :  22 ;  Ixxvii  2,  5  ; 
Is.  1  :  10,  &c.  These  men  did  not  therefore  cease  to  be  believ- 
ers ?  The  proof  is  so  obvious  that  Calvin  is  obliged  to  modify 
the  assertions  of  which  we  have  seen  specimens,  to  include 
these  cases,  until  he  has  virtually  retracted  his  doctrine. 

(b.)  Second  :  this   doctrine    really  adds  to  the  proposition 

T,,    ^       ..  „r    , ,    which  is  the  object   of  saving    faith.       That 
The  Opposite  Would  .  .  •  ,,      1  1     i-  1        ^     ^^ 

Place  Another  Propo-    proposition  IS  :       whosoever  believeth   shall 

sition    as    Object    of   bc  saved ;"  and  according  to  its  very  nature, 

it  must  follow  that  the  moment  it  is  believed, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  7O3 

the  sinner  is  saved,  whether  he  sees  any  other  truth  or  not.  To 
teach  the  view  of  the  first  Reformers,  instead  of  exalting  Christ, 
as  they,  with  their  modern  imitators  boastfully  claim,  really 
calls  the  soul  away  from  Christ,  and  bids  him  look  at  another 
proposition  touching  the  state  and  actings  of  his  own  soul, 
before  he  is  permitted  to  trust  in  Christ.  Our  view  scripturally 
directs  him  to  find  his  comfort  by  looking  wholly  out  of  himself 
to  Christ.  Indeed,  if  we  adhere  strictly  to  the  terms  of  the 
gospel,  we  shall  see  that  the  exercise  of  such  a  faith  as  Calvin 
describes  is  an  impossibility,  without  a  new  and  direct  revela- 
tion in  every  case.  Thus,  "no  man  is  saved  in  Christ  till 
he  has  come  to  believe  that  Christ  has  saved  him."  But  it 
IS  only  by  believing  that  he  is  saved  in  Christ ;  so  that  this 
definition  of  faith  requires  the  effect  to  precede  its  own  cause. 
The  sinner  must  therefore  find  out  the  "benevolence  of  Christ 
towards  himself,"  not  from  the  gospel  promise,  but  from  the 
Holy  Ghost  directly,  without  the  gospel.  But  are  we  ready 
for  this  ?  Do  we  surrender  the  great  truth,  that  Christ  is  the 
object,  to  which  the  Holy  Ghost  points  the  believing  soul  ? 
And  is  Christ  revealed  anywhere  but  in  the  Word  ?  I  repeat: 
the  Word  nowhere  says  that  A.  B.  shall  be  saved ;  but  that 
"  whosoever  believeth  shall  be  saved."  How  then  is  A.  B.  to 
know  scripturally,  that  he  is  actually  saved  ?  Only  by  the 
rational  deduction  from  the  pair  of  premises,  of  which  one  is 
given  by  the  Word,  and  the  other  by  his  regenerated  con- 
sciousness :  thus,  "  whosoever  truly  believes  is  saved."  But 
I  am  conscious  of  truly  believing;  therefore  I  am  saved." 
Now,  my  point  is :  that  the  mind  cannot  know  the  conclusion 
before  it  knows  the  minor  premise  thereof.  On  the  contrary, 
it  can  only  know  the  conclusion  by  first  knowing  both  the 
premises.  The  student  may  see  the  rational  and  scriptural 
order  copiously  discussed  by  Turrettin,  Loc.  xiv.  qu.  14,  §  45 
to  52.  The  attempt  may  be  made  to  escape  this  argument  by 
saying  that  since  faith  is  a  divine  and  supernatural  grace  inwrought 
by  the  almighty  Spirit,  it  can  proceed  independent  of  this  rational 
order.  But  T  answer:  Does  not  the  Holy  Ghost  always  act  on 
the  soul  according  to  its  rational  laws  ?  Are  not  those  laws  of 
God's  making?  Does  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  all  Truth 
result  in  the  soul's  acting  abnormally,  and  against  its  proper  laws? 
Unless  then,  there  is  a  direct,  immediate  revelation  to  A.  B.  of 
his  personal  share  in  Christ,  which  no  Calvinist  asserts,  there  is 
no  escape  from  my  argument. 

Third  :  if  faith  were  such  an   exercise   as  this,   when  once 
Finally  Lost,  Could    ^^^  finally  impenitent   reach   hell,    it  will    no 
not  be  Convicted  for    longer  be  fair  to  punish  them  for  not  believ- 
Unbehef.  -j-^g  unto  salvation  ;  for  it  will  then   be  mani- 

fest that  had  they  believed  in  Christ's  benevolence  towards 
themselves,  it  would  not  have  been  true.  So  that  in  refusing 
to  believe,  they  acted  so  far  properly :    the   Holy  Ghost  never 


704  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

gave  them  a  warrant  to  believe.  But  the  premise  which  leads 
to  this  conclusion  cannot  be  right ;  for  we  know  that  God  com- 
mands all  men,  everywhere,  to  repent  and  believe. 

The  scriptural  argument  against  this  exaggerated  doctrine 

may  be  much   strengthened   by  recalling  the 

f  "^P^^^f.^"J°^."^    passages  where  self-examination   is  enjoined 

Seli-t,xamination.  ^  °  1  ,      ,•  , 

on  professed  believers ;  and  that,  not  only  as 
to  the  general  propriety  of  their  lives,  but  as  to  the  very  point, 
whether  their  state  of  grace  is  genuine.  Here  may  be  con- 
sulted Rom.  v:4;  i  Cor.  xi :  28  ;  2  Cor.  xiii :  5  ;  2Pet.  i:io. 
Marks  or  signs  are  also  laid  down,  by  which  one  may  try 
whether  he  has  true  or  spurious  faith.  Jno.  xv  '.14;  I  Epist.  of 
John  iii :  14,  19.  This  apostle  tells  his  people,  that  he  wrote 
the  epistle  in  order  to  enable  them  to  know  that  they  had 
eternal  life.  Our  argument  is :  that  had  the  assurance  of  our 
own  grace  and  salvation  been  an  essential  part  of  faith,  believ- 
ers could  not  have  been  reasonably  commanded  to  examine 
and  settle  the  question :  the  simple  fact  that  it  needed  examin- 
ation would  have  shown  them  no  believers  at  all. 

The     scriptural    argument    advanced    by    Calvin     for    his 

extreme  view  of  faith  amounts  mainly  to 
AeainstUs!  this:    that   the    Apostles    generally    address 

believers  and  speak  of  them  as  persons 
assured  in  their  hope,  e.  g.,  2  Cor.  xiii  :  5  ;  v  :  i  ;  i  Peter  i  :  8 
and  9  ;  I  Jno.  v  :  19,  &c.  But  the  first  of  these. passages,  when 
properly  construed,  only  says  that  men  are  reprobates  unless 
they  have  Christ  formed  in  them,  not  unless  they  recognize 
Him  in  them.  And  to  all  of  them,  we  reply,  that  when  the 
sacred  writers  thus  address  a  whole  Church  of  professed 
believers  in  terms  appropriate  only  to  the  best,  they  only  use 
the  language  of  Christian  hope,  charity  and  courtesy.  The 
proof  is  indisputable  :  for  those  very  Corinthians  are  sharply 
rebuked  by  Paul,  and  exhorted  to  examine  themselves  jeal- 
ously;  and  John  says  that  one  object  he  had  in  writing  his 
epistle,  was  to  enable  the  people  to  come  to  an  assurance  of 
hope.  2  Pet.  i  :  10;  i  Jno.  iii  :  9,  10.  The  "we"  which  these 
apostles  use  are  often  no  others  than  the  apostles  themselves, 
with  any  Christians  of  like  attainments.  But  there  is  also  some 
justice  in  the  surmise,  that  assurance  of  hope  was  more  gene- 
rally given  in  those  primitive  days,  because  the  Church  was 
called  to  testify,  and  to  suffer  more.  So  that  if  it  should  even 
appear  that  it  was  the  common  attainment  of  believers  then, . 
this  would  not  prove  it  of  the  essence  of  faith. 

Those  who  revive  the  doctrine  of  Calvin  here,  also  argue, 
that  doubt  and  faith  are  opposites ;  so  that  where  there  is 
doubt,  there  cannot  be  hearty  faith :  that  my  conception  of 
faith  is  really  no  faith  at  all ;  because  it  directs  the  inquirer  to 
repose  his  trust,  not  upon  the  word  and  faithfulness  of  Christ, 
.but  upon  certain  affections  which  he  supposes  he  sees  in  him- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  705 

self:  and  that,  since  consciousness  attends  all  the  operations 
of  the  soul,  no  man  -can  believe  without  being  conscious  he 
believes.  They  insist  much  on  the  immediate  and  intuitive 
nature  of  consciousnesss  in  this  concern,  and  even  represent  it 
as  a  species  of  sense-instinct.  It  is  compared  to  "  the  animal 
sense  of  departed  pain  and  present  ease." 

The   reply   to   the   first   of  these   points  is,  that  the  weak 
believer   does   not   doubt  Christ   at   all ;  but 
"^^^'^^^  only  himself.     It  is  not  on  the  major,  but  on 

the  minor  premise  of  the  believer's  syllogism,  that  his  con- 
sciousness is  obscure.  He  can  always  say,  with  emphasis,  that, 
were  he  only  sure  his  deceitful  heart  was  not  deluding  him  with 
a  dead  faith,  his  assurance  would  be  perfect.  Now,  mistrust  of 
Christ  is  inconsistent  with  faith ;  but  we  are  yet  to  learn  that 
self-mistrust  is  incompatible  with  that  grace.  The  second 
point  receives  its  solution  from  the  same  syllogism.  What 
would  the  minor  premise  be  worth  to  establish  a  conclusion, 
without  the  major?  But  the  weak  believer  takes  that  propo- 
sition :  "  Whosoever  believeth  is  saved,"  solely  on  the  authority 
of  God.  When  that  same  God  tells  him  that  there  are  two 
kinds  of  believing,  only  one  of  which  fulfils  the  term  of  that 
proposition,  and  that  the  deceitfulness  of  the  heart  often  causes 
the  false  kind  to  ape  the  true ;  and  when  the  humble  soul 
inspects  his  own  faith  to  make  sure  that  it  meets  the  terms  of 
God's  promise,  prompted  to  do  so  by  mistrust  of  self,  it  passes 
common  wit  to  see,  wherein  that  process  is  a  "  trusting  in  self, 
instead  of  God's  word."  To  the  argument  from  consciousness, 
there  are  two  replies.  One  is :  that  distinct  consciousness  does 
not  attend  all  the  actions  of  the  soul.  There  are,  unquestion- 
ably, unconscious  modifications  of  the  mind.  But  it  is  more  to 
our  purpose  to  remark,  that  when  the  mind  is  confused  by 
great  haste,  or  the  agitation  of  vivid  emotions,  or  when  the 
mental  states  are  very  complex,  the  remembered  consciousness 
is  obscured,  or  even  lost.  This  well  known  truth  evinces, 
that  there  may  be  a  soul  exercising  a  true  though  immature 
faith,  and  not  distinctly  conscious  of  it.  But  the  other  reply  is 
still  shorter :  There  is  a  spurious,  as  well  as  a  genuine  faith. 
If  the  man  thinks  he  believes  aright,  he  is  conscious  of  exer- 
cising what  he  thinks  is  a  right  faith.  This  is  the  correct  state- 
ment. Now,  if  the  faith  needs  a  discrimination  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  dead  faith,  just  to  the  same  extent  will  the  con- 
sciousness about  it  need  the  same  discrimination. 

When  the  reasonings   of  these  theologians   are   analysed, 
they  evidently  disclose  this  basis,  viz:     Be- 
CoIsdoutne5s!''"*°^    cause    the    testimony    of    consciousness    is 
immediate    and    intuitive,   they    have    obvi- 
ously slidden  into  the  idea  that  it  is  supra-rational.     But  the 
truth  is,  that  consciousness  is  a  rational  faculty,  just  as  truly  as 
is  the  logical  faculty.     The  only  difference  is,  that  its  acts  are 
•  45* 


705  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

primary  acts  of  the  reason,  while  the  deductive  and  compara- 
tive are  secondary.  Hence,  there  is  the  most  perfect  con- 
sistency in  our  representing,  as  Scripture  does,  such  conscious- 
ness as  cohering  with,  and  assisted  by,  the  deductions  of  the 
reason.  And  when  Scripture  gives  the  premises  for  such 
deductions,  and  the  illumination  of  the  Spirit  guides  them,  it  is 
hard  to  see  why  they  should  be  held  so  unworthy  to  be  com- 
pared with  the  primary  intuitions ;  seeing  especially  that  these, 
if  not  guided  by  the  same  Spirit,  must  infallibly  reflect  what- 
ever counterfeit  affection  the  deceitfulness  of  indwelling  sin 
may  have  injected.  How  short  and  plain  this  statement:  that 
our  whole  salvation  is  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth?  But 
truth  only  acts  on  man's  intelligence ;  whence  the  whole  pro- 
cess of  salvation  must  be  as  truly  rational  as  it  is  spiritual. 

We  argue  that  the  assurance  of  hope 
^ J.  Assurance  Attain-    j^   attainable,   and  should   be   sought   by   all 
believers  ;  first,  presumptively  : 
Because  such  a  state  of  the  case  seems  necessarily  implied 

in  the  duty  of  seeking   Christ.     God  makes 
Because    it    is    Our     •.  j    ^     j.  j.        i  i 

Duty  to  be  in  Christ.       ^^  ^^^  duty  to  use  means  to  place  ourselves  m 

union  with  Christ.     Must  there  not  be  some 

way  for  us  to  know  whether  we  have  obeyed  and  do  obey  this 

command  ?     It  will  not  avail  to  say,  that  God  makes  it  our  duty 

to  keep  on  striving  just  the  same,  to  establish  this   union  with 

Christ,  to  the  end  of  life.     True,  He  commands  us  to  repeat 

our  acts  of  faith  and  repentance  all  the  time.     But  if  we  are  not 

in  Christ  we  have   never  believed  aright,  so  that  the  thing  we 

should  be  counselled  to  is,  not  to  repeat  those  same  abortive 

efforts,   but  to   set  about  a   new  kind   of    efforts.      See  Rev. 

iii  :  17,  18. 

Second  :  The  Scripture  is  full  of  commands,  prayers,  and 

.        promises    for   assurance    of    hope.        i    Cor. 

Promises  Imply  it.  •      „o       „    r^  •••       -  r-  ••  t    1 

'  •'  XI  :  28  ;  2  Cor.  xui  :  5  ;    i    Cor.   a  :  12  ;  John 

xiv  :  20;  Heb.  vi  :  18  ;  2  Pet.  i  :  10;  i  Jno.  ii  :  3  ;  v  :  13  ;  iii :  14, 
&c. ;  Rev.  ii :  17.  It  is  true  that  God  commands  us  to  be  "  perfect," 
as  He  is  perfect,  and  to  pray  for  entire  conformity  to  Christ ; 
while  yet  Calvinists  do  not  believe  that  this  perfection  is  attain- 
able in  this  life,  by  any.  But  here  are  commands  of  a  more 
definite  sort.  e.  g.,  I  Cor.  xi :  28  ;  2  Cor.  xiii  :  5,  commands  to 
use  an  immediate  means,  self-examination,  for  the  attainment  of 
an  end  immediately  connected  therewith,  namely,  assurance. 
Here  are  promises  given,  Jno.  xiv  :  20,  &c.,  of  the  enjoyment 
of  assurance.     These  things  make  out  a  different  case. 

Third :  Both  in  Bible  times  and  since,    there  have  been 
instances     of    assurance     actually     enio^-ed 

Has  Actually  Been     ,i  i    /^     j'    i  i        •  .1  ^■ 

Attained.  through  (jrod  s  blessmg  on  the  ordmary  means 

of    grace.       Since    the  days    of    inspiration, 

saints  of  the  greatest  sobriety  and  truthfulness  have  professed 

such  assurance,  and  have  been  encouraged  by  it  to  brave   the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  7O7 

most  fearful  trials.  Such  cases  are  widely  distinguished  from 
the  multitudes  of  fanatical  self-deceivers.  In  Bible  days  we 
find  a  number  of  other  cases.  Ps.  ciii  :  2  ;  xvi  :  8-10  ;  Rom. 
V :  I  ;  Gal.  v  :  22  ;  i  Thess.  v  :  9;  2  Tim.  1:12;  i  Pet.  i  :  8 ;  i 
Jno.  ii  :  3  ;  Phil,  iv  :  6,  7,  &c. 

To  these  it  has  been  objected,  that  they  were  inspired 
cases.  Note,  e.  g.,  in  i  Pet.  i  :  8,  the  Apostle  was  inspired  but 
not  the  Christians  to  whom  he  wrote  !  Moreover,  there  are 
very  few  cases  in  Scripture  where  we  see  any  individual  receive 
a  revealed  assurance  directly  of  his  own  interest  in  redemp- 
tion. An  examination  will  impress  us  how  remarkably  chary 
God  has  been  of  such  helps  ;  and  how  generally  peculiar  spirit- 
ual charisms  were  bestowed  for  the  benefit  of  the  Church,  and 
not  of  the  individual. 

Fourth :  The  nature  of  the  graces  in  exercise  in  the 
Christian  heart  would  show,  that  the  true 
GracSshouMGKeit  believer  ought  to  be  able,  with  due  care,  to 
come  to  a  certain  knowledge  whether  he  has 
them.  In  other  things,  men  can  usually  interpret  their  own 
consciousness  with  confidence ;  they  can  certainly  tell  whether 
they  love  or  hate,  or  believe  in  a  fellow-man.  Villains  usually 
have  a  lurking  consciousness  that  they  are  villains  ;  and  efforts 
at  self-deception  are  usually  conscious.  But  Christian  princi- 
ples are  described  as  peculiar,  and  as  the  very  strongest  prin- 
ciples of  the  soul.  Why  then  should  not  the  love,  joy,  peace, 
trust,  submission,  penitence,  of  a  renewed  heart  become  pal- 
pable to  it,  with  due  self-examination  ?  We  should  remember 
also,  that  God,  by  His  providential  trials,  calls  to  duty  and  sac- 
rifice for  His  sake  and  bereavements,  speedily  gives  most 
believers  excellent  tests  of  genuine  religious  principles.  It  is 
objected,  that  "  the  heart  is  deceitful  above  aU  things  and 
desperately  wicked.  Who  can  know  it  ?"  I  reply,  that  the 
believer  is  not  required  to  know  everything  about  this  deceitful 
heart,  (an  impossibility  for  him)  in  order  to  know  his  own  con- 
version ;  but  only  to  know  some  things,  And  moreover,  in 
knowing  these,  he  is  promised  the  aids  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  this  leads  us. 

Last :  To   argue  from  the  witnessing  of  the    Holy   Ghost. 

„  ,     ^,        ^  His  testimony  with  our  spirits    is  promised. 

Holy   Ghost   Prom-     •  •  ,  jr  ji.i- 

ises  it  by  His  Witness.    ^^  various  places  and  forms  ;  and  surely  this 
pledges  God  to  make  assurance  a  practica- 
ble attainment.     See  Rom.  viii  :  16;  Eph.  i  :  13  ;  iv  :  30;   2  Cor. 
i  :  22  ;    I  Jno.  ii  :  27. 

Comparing  sections  3  and  4,  we  may  see  that  although  the 

,„     „,     ,,    ^^  dogma  of  the  Reformers  was  erroneous,  their 

We    Sliould    Never  ,-•      ^    c     t  ■         ^i         • 

Tolerate  its  Absence.      practical   teehng  concerning  the   importance 

of  assurance    was    much  more  correct   than 

ours.     The  saints   of  that  age  did   not,  like  so  many  now,  sit 

year  after  year,  in  sinful  indolence,  complaining  of  the  want  of 


708  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

assurance,  and  yet  indifferent  to  its  cultivation.  To  them  it  was 
as  the  vital  breath,  to  be  either  enjoyed  perpetually,  or  else,  if 
not  enjoyed,  to  be  sought  with  intense  exertion.  Now,  we  say, 
that  while  Faith  may  subsist  without  assurance  of  hope,  every 
believer  can  and  ought  to  attain  in  due  time  to  the  latter.  And 
though  it  may  be  absent  from  a  true  Christian,  yet  no  true 
Christian  can  be  satisfied  with  its  absence.  If  he  feels  the 
reality  of  heaven,  he  will  wish  to  know  whether  it  is  to  be  his. 
If  he  truly  believes  there  is  a  hell,  he  must  earnestly  long  to  be 
certified  that  he  shall  avoid  it.  He  cannot  be  content  to  plod 
on,  not  knowing  whether  or  not  his  feet  are  on  the  blood  of  the 
Redeemer,  whom  he  loves,  whether  the  viper,  sin,  which  he 
hates,  still  enfolds  his  heart  ;  whether  he  is  to  spend  the 
approaching  eternity  bathing  his  weary  soul  in  seas  of  heavenly 
rest,  or  buffeting  the  fiery  billows  of  wrath.  A  willingness  to 
be  ignorant  of  these  things  is  proof  of  indifference.  The 
chief  reason  why  so  many  live  on  without  assurance  is,  that 
they  have  no  true  faith. 

The  means  for  attaining  this  assurance   of  hope  are  indi- 
5.  Means  of  Assu-    cated    by   comparing    the    Confession,  chap, 
ranee.     Self-examina-    xviii,  §  I,   2,    3.     In   the   first   place,   he   who 
'^°"'  ^^^'  would   seek   it  successfully,  must  be   a  true 

believer,  (not  clearly  known  to  himself  as  such,  for  then  there 
would  be  nothing  farther  to  seek,  but  known  as  such  to  God). 
Hence  he  who  seeks  long,  without  attaining,  should  probably 
do  his  first  works  again.  In  the  next  place,  he  should  endeavor 
to  live,  in  heart  and  life,  in  a  consistent  manner,  exercising  those 
principles  and  that  conduct  which  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  true 
children  of  God.  For,  in  the  third  place,  one  means  of  assur- 
ance is  the  comparison  which  the  believer  makes  between  the 
Bible  description  and  his  own  heart  and  life.  But  the  experi- 
ence of  Christians,  I  am  persuaded,  finds  this  process  of  self- 
examination  and  comparison  rather  an  indirect  than  a  direct 
means  of  assurance.  For  a  faithful  self-inspection  usually 
reveals  so  much  that  is  defective,  that  its  first  result  is  rather 
the  discouragement  than  the  encouragement  of  hope.  But 
this  leads  the  humbled  Christian  to  look  away  from  himself  to 
the  Redeemer  ;  and  thus  assurance,  which  is  the  reflex  act  of 
faith,  is  strengthened  by  strengthening  the  direct  actings  of  faith 
itself.  Now,  if  there  is  nothing,  or  little,  in  himself  which  can 
be  compared  favorably  with  the  Bible-measuring  rule,  of  course 
assurance  cannot  properly  result.  This  comparison,  then  is  to 
be  made  in  the  work  of  self-examination,  which  must  be  hon- 
estly, thoroughly,  and  prayerfully  performed.  We  say,  prayer- 
fully, for  man's  heart  is  deceitful ;  self-love,  self-righteousness, 
spiritual  pride,  hope,  and  fear,  are  nearly  interested  in  the 
decision,  and  the  understanding  of  man  is  too  feeble  and  uncer- 
tain an  instrument,  at  best,  to  be  trusted  with  the  everlasting 
and  irreparable  issues  of  this  question,  when  unaided. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  7O9 

But  here,  we  are  again  compelled  to  defend  our  Confession 
against  the  charge  :  that  by  directing  the 
•ff^^^"^'^'^^°^'^°^  ^^^'  believer  to  seek  assurance  of  his  gracious 
state  from  the  discovery  in  himself  of  sup- 
posed graces,  we  are  encouraging  him  to  build  on  a  self-right- 
eous foundation.  It  is  strange  that  these  writers  do  not  remem- 
ber the  fact,  that  the  Bible  commands  Christians  (see  p.  704,) 
to  do  the  very  thing  they  denounce.  And  to  a  plain  mind,  it 
seems  a  most  perverse  charge,  that  it  is  self-righteous  to  infer  from 
his  possession  of  certain  qualities  in  oneself  that  God  is  recon- 
ciled to  him  ;  when  the  very  premise  of  his  inference  is,  that  he 
could  never  have  wrought  these  qualities  in  himself;  but  if  they 
are  in  him,  they  were  wrought  by  sovereign  grace.  The  ques- 
tion to  be  settled  for  our  assurance  is  :  Is  God  reconciled  to  us  ? 
The  process  is :  "  Yes,  God  is  reconciled  "  (conclusion)  "  because 
we  find  in  ourselves  changes  which  He  alone  can  work  ;"  (pre- 
mise) "and  which  only  unbought  love  prompted  Him  to  work." 
Where  is  the  self-righteousness  of  this  ?  How  does  it  lead  to 
boasting,  or  vain  confidence  ?  Let  us,  for  illustration,  compare 
the  process  by  which  our  opponents  suppose  the  immediate 
consciousness  of  believing  ministers  the  assurance  of  salvation 
to  every  believer  immediately.  If  that  process  holds,  it  yet 
involves  thus  much  of  an  illation  :  "  My  consciousness  of  faith 
assures  me  I  am  saved,  because  God  works  faith  in  none  but 
the  saved."  Now  why  is  not  the  parallel  process  equally  valid 
for  any  other  grace,  which  only  God  works  ?  He  assures  us, 
that  "love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  goodness,  meekness,  tem- 
perance" are  as  truly  "  fruits  of  the  Spirit,"  as  faith  is.  (Gal. 
v  :  22).  The  only  difference  is,  that  faith  is  related  to  the  other 
graces  as  a  seminal  principle :  and  that  it  is  the  organ  of  our 
justification  :  but  this  does  not  change  the  case.  Why  is  it 
self-confidence  and  self-righteousness  to  infer  God's  favour 
from  other  effects  which  He  alone  works,  and  works  only  in 
His  own  people :  and  yet  so  scriptural  to  infer  our  safety  from 
the  faith  which  God  works  in  us  ?  And  since  there  is  a  spurious 
faith,  which  is  discriminated  from  the  genuine  by  the  lack  of 
right  fruits,  it  is  too  obvious  to  be  disputed,  that  we  should 
examine  those  fruits,  in  order  to  assure  ourselves.  So  evident 
is  this,  that  we  find  even  Calvin,  (Bk.  iii  :  Ch.  ii  :  §  7,)  in  view  of 
the  existence  of  a  dead  faith  simulating  the  living,  concede  the 
doctrine.  "  In  the  meantime,  the  faithful  are  taught  to  examine 
themselves  with  solicitude  and  humility,  lest  carnal  security 
insinuate  itself,  instead  of  the  assurance  of  faith."  And  Luther, 
as  Dorner  assures  us,  sometimes  speaks  more  scripturally  than 
Calvin,  distinguishing  between  "  an  assuring  faith"  (the  fuller 
attainment)  and  "  a  receiving  faith,"  which  he  regards  as  true 
faith,  and  justifying.  Nor  "  did  he  shrink  from  treating  the 
new  life  of  love,  which  is  forming,  as  an  evidence  of  faith." 

It  may  be  argued,  that  unless  the  inward  marks  are  infal- 


7lO  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Spiritual  Discernment  lible,  no  assurance  of  our  salvation  can  be 
Necessary  on  Either  founded  on  them  ;  but  their  scheme  offers. 
^'^^^-  directly  the  infallible  promise  of  God,  as  the 

exclusive  basis  of  the  assurance.  I  answer  by  referring  the 
student  to  the  fact,  that  the  same  quickening  grace  which 
bestows  faith,  also  bestows  spiritual  discernment.  How  else  did 
the  sinner,  blind  by  nature,  see  "  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face 
of  Jesus  Christ  ?"  This  spiritual  discernment  is  promised  to 
direct  the  believer  in  his  examination. 

When  arguing  for  these  scriptural  means,  we  should  not 
forget  that  the  habit  of  introspection  may  be 
^Jntrospection  Diffi-  abused,  to  divert  the  eyes  of  the  soul  too 
much  from  Christ.  Dr.  Chalmers,  in  the 
place  cited,  has  admirably  illustrated  a  law  of  the  mind,  which 
should  caution  us  against  that  abuse.  The  essential  condition 
for  the  conscious  flow  of  any  affection  is  the  presence  of  its 
object,  at  least  in  thought,  before  the  mind.  Thus,  Christ 
must  be  directly  before  the  thought,  in  order  for  love  to  Christ 
to  flow  forth  consciously  to  Him.  But  when  we  begin  to 
inspect  our  love  for  Him,  we  substitute  another  object.  Hence 
the  current  of  our  love  subsides  as  soon  as  we  attempt  to  mea- 
sure it.  This  explains  a  difficulty  which  has  embarrassed 
many  Christians  :  and  it  presents  another  ground  for  asserting 
the  necessity  of  the  Spirits'  witness,  that  we  may  safely  inter- 
pret our  own  feelings. 

This  witnessing,  saith  the  Confession,  is  without  extraordi- 
nary   revelation.      His    agencies    here,    are 

The  Witness  What  ?      •■       u-i  i,    *.    ^i  4.      ^.t     •      j 

doubtless  what  they  are,  as  to  their  degree 

and  nature,  in  His  other  sanctifying  operations  through  the 
Word  ;  neither  more  nor  less  inscrutable,  and  just  to  the  same 
extent  supernatural.  Thus,  it  is  His  to  illuminate  the  soul, 
giving  to  the  understanding  spiritual  apprehensions  of  Truth. 
It  is  His  to  shine  upon  His  own  work  in  our  hearts,  both  bright- 
ening it,  and  aiding  us  in  the  comparison  of  it.  It  is  His  to 
stimulate  our  righteousness;  caution,  and  impartiality,  by  renew- 
ing and  sanctifying  the  dispositions,  and  quickening  our  appre- 
hensions of  the  Divine  Judge,  and  of  the  stake  at  issue.  Thus 
the  comparison  between  our  graces  and  the  Bible  standard,  is 
made  under  His  superintendence  and  light ;  so  that  while  He 
communicates  no  new  revealed  fact,  contributes  nothing  new,  so 
to  speak,  to  the  material  of  the  comparison,  or  of  the  measuring 
rule,  the  result  of  the  measurement  is  trustworthy.  If  such  a 
soul  finds  in  itself  the  evident  actings  of  such  graces  as  the  Bible 
calls  for,  then  it  has  an  assurance  which  is  both  scriptural  and 
reasonable  and  spiritual.  It  is  according  to  the  rule  of  Scrip- 
ture. It  is  reached  according  to  the  laws  of  the  human  under- 
standing, intelligently  and  solidly.  But  best  of  all,  it  is  also 
formed  under  the  superintendence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
He    enables    the    humble,  prayerful    inquirer,   to    repose  on  it 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  /I  I 

with  "  a  hope  inexpressible  and  full  of  glory. "  Such  an 
assurance  may  well  be  called  infallible.  It  maybe  aped  indeed, 
so  far  as  human  judgment  can  distinguish,  by  false  security  ; 
but  the  difference  is  known  to  God,  and  to  the  believer,  con- 
scious as  he  is  of  thorough  candour,  humility  and  submission  ; 
and  the  judgment  day  will  reveal  the  difference. 

Now  the  ideas  of  the    Wesleyan  concerning   this  witness 
of  the   Holy  Ghost,   are   far  different.        He 

f^^^lfrf'^   Doctnne    ^akes  it  indeed  an  independent   revelation, 
of  the  Witness.  ^i  ,.  ,■ 

by  which  the  Holy  Ghost  reveals  immedi- 
ately to  the  convert's  mind,  without  a  mediate  process  of  self- 
examination  and  "comparison,  that  he  is  now  reconciled.  All 
the  arguments  on  which  they  rely  to  establish  this  view,  against 
ours,  may  be  reduced  to  two :  that  two  witnesses  are  said 
(Rom.  viii :  i6),  to  concur,  whereas  our  view  seems  to  make  no 
other  testimony  than  that  of  our  own  spirits  (assisted  indeed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost),  and  that  the  assurance  cannot  proceed 
mediately  from  the  believer's  consciousness  of  Christian  affec- 
tions within ;  because  those  affections  are  only  evoked  by  the 
assurance  of  our  adoption,  i  Jno.  iv  :  19.  To  the  first  of  these 
I  reply,  their  view  excludes  the  witnessing  of  the  believer's 
spirit  at  least  as  much  as  ours  seems  to  exclude  that  of  God's. 
But,  how  can  this  concurrence  of  two  witnesses  be  better 
described  than  in  such  a  case  as  we  have  sup- 
^^  ^^^'  posed  ?     We  protest  that  our  view  does  most 

fully  and  fairly  avow  the  concurrence  of  God's  Holy  Ghost  in 
the  witnessing.  He  witnesseth  along  with  our  spirits.  To  the 
second  argument,  we  reply  that  is  worthless  to  all  except  a 
Synergist.  It  is  simply  absurd,  in  our  view,  to  assert  that  the 
believer  can  never  have  any  regenerate  exercises  characteristic 
of  the  new  life,  until  after  he  has  an  assurance  of  his  adoption : 
when  we  believe,  and  have  proved,  that  faith  itself  is  a  regen- 
erate exercise,  as  well  as  repentance.  Second  :  it  is  false  that 
the  renewed  soul  has  no  regenerate  exercises  till  they  are 
evoked  by  an  assurance  of  its  acceptance.  This  is  not  the 
sense  of  Jno.  iv:  19.  The  first  love  of  the  new-born  soul  is  not 
thus  mercenary  ;  it  cannot  help  loving,  and  repenting,  and  ador- 
ing, though  unconscious  of  hope.  And  last :  surely  the  exhibi- 
tion of  the  goodness,  grace,  truth  and  love  of  God  made  to  all 
sinners  in  Jno.  iii :  16,  is  enough  to  evoke  the  first  actings  of  love 
on  the  new-born  sinner's  part,  while  he  is  still  unconscious  of  a 
personal  hope.  To  say  that  a  regenerate  soul  could  look  at 
this  lovely  exhibition  of  God's  mercy  towards  "whosoever  will 
receive  it,"  and  feel  no  love,  because  forsooth  not  yet  assured  of 
its  own  personal  interest  in  it,  is  to  say  that  that  soul  is  still  in 
the  gall  of  bitterness. 

This  idea  of  an  immediate  witness  we  disprove,  1st,  by  the 

fact    that    self-examination    is    commanded, 
Refutation,  Farther.         i-v  uu  a  j.     i.-  1         j 

which  would  be  supernuous  to  him  already 


712  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

assured  by  a  revelation,  2nd.  Because  revelations  have 
ceased,  and  Christians  are  now  remanded  to  Scripture  as  the 
whole  and  sole  source  of  all  the  religious  informations  needed 
to  carry  the  soul  to  heaven.  Jno.  v  :  39  ;  i  Cor.  xiii :  8;  2  Tim.  iii :  15 
-1 7.  3rd.  It  contradicts  the  experience  of  the  very  best  converts 
[tried  by  their  fruits],  who  often  exhibit  good  marks  of  peni- 
tence, submission,  love :  when  their  souls  are  so  absorbed  by 
the  sense  of  God's  holiness  and  majesty,  and  their  own  vileness, 
that  they  dare  not  rejoice  in  their  acceptance.  And  it  equally 
contradicts  the  experience  of  maturer  converts,  who  usually 
have  their  assurance  dawn  slightly,  and  grow  gradually,  as  their 
experience  and  graces  grow.  See  Is.  xlii :  16;  *R.om.  v;4.  4th. 
It  opens  the  doors  for  untold  self-deceptions,  mistaking  the 
whispers  of  self-love,  carnal  security,  spiritual  pride,  fanaticism, 
or  Satan,  for  this  super-scriptural  witness.  The  most  biting 
argument  against  it  is  in  the  history  of  Wesleyan  revivals, 
with  their  spurious  conversions.  John  Wesley  was  himself  so 
sensible  of  this  objection,  that  he  appeals  to  the  other  concur- 
rent witnessing,  that  of  the  Christian's  consciousness  compared 
with  Scripture,  to  show  him  that  the  previous  witness  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  not  a  delusion.  This  virtually  surrenders  his  dogma: 
for  this  witness  of  the  believer's  spirit,  although  mentioned  last, 
is  in  reality  precedent  in  order.  As  the  ambasador's  credentials 
must  precede  his  recognition,  so  this  witnessing  of  the  concious 
graces  in  the  heart  must  give  credence  to  the  immediate  impres- 
sion! 

Assurance    of    hope,  scripturally    founded,    will  result  in 
advantage  only.     It  increases  spiritual    joy. 
6.  Effects  of  Assur-    'pj^^g  [^  promotes  usefulness,  Nehemiah  viii : 
ance  Holy.  -^      ^  111  -/--it 

10.  It  unseals  the  heart  to  praise  God.  It 
stimulates  evangelical  labours,  i  Cor.  xv:58.  It  nerves  us  for 
self-denial.     It   lifts  us  above  carnal  temptations.      Phil,  iv  :  7. 

Some  have  thought  the  assurance  of  hope  arrogant, 
as  though  it  were  modest  and  seemly  to  be  in  suspense  con- 
cerning our  salvation.  I  answer:  If  we  expected  to  save  our- 
selves, so  it  would  be.  To  be  in  suspense  whether  Christ  is 
able,  and  willing,  and  faithful,  surely  is  no  mark  of  our  humil- 
ity; but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  a  dishonor  to  Him. 

The  main  objection,  however,  is,  that  assurance,  coupled 
with  the  doctrine  of  perseverance  of  saints,  will  become  the 
sure  occasion  of  spiritual  indolence  and  carnal  security. 
We  reply,  that  if  an  unrenewed  man  should  persuade  him- 
self unscripturally  that  he  is  in  Christ,  this  result  would  surely 
follow.  But  how  can  it  follow  to  that  man  who  scripturally 
founds  his  hope  on  the  existence  in  himself  of  a  disposition  to 
flee  from  sin,  strive  after  holiness,  and  fight  the  good  fight  of 
faith  ?  He  hopes  he  is  a  Christian,  only  because  he  sees  reason 
to  hope  that  he  shall  strive  to  the  end.  The  perception  in  him- 
self of  the  depraving  consequence   charged   above,   would    at 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  /IS 


■once  vitiate  the  evidence  that  he  was,  or  ever  had  been,  a  child 
of  God  just  in  proportion  as  it  was  reahzed.  The  watchtul 
garrisoii  are  confident  that  they  shall  not  fall  victims  to  a  sur- 
prise because  they  intend  to  watch.  Such  assurance  only 
stimulates  effort.  The.  drunken  rioters  go  to  sleep  flattermg 
themselves  they  shall  not  be  surprised  ;  but  this  is  presumption, 
not  assurance.  In  the  actual  experiences  of  Christians,  he  who 
enioys  the  grace  of  assurance  ever  walks  most  caretuUy  and 
tendery  before  his  God,  lest  the  precious  elixir  be  lost  through 
negligence,      See    Ps.  cxxxix :  21,  24;    2   Cor.  v :  6-9  ;    Heb. 


VI :  9-1 2, 


LECTURE  LX. 

PRAYER. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  the  definition,  and  what  the  parts  of  prayer  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  xxi.     Shorter  Cat.  Qu.  98  to  end.    Directoiy  of  Worship, 
chs.  5,  15,     Dick,  Lect.  93.     Ridgley,  Qu.  178. 

2.  Who  is  the  proper  object  of  prayer? 

Dick,  Lect.  93.     Ridgley,  Qu.  179.  .  ,  •   ^^  „„j 

3.  What  are  the  proper  grounds  by  which  the  duty  of  prayer  is  sustained  and 

enforced  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^iii^  ch.   10.      Dick,;Lect.  93-     Hill,  bk.  v.  §  3.     Knapp,  §  133, 

Appendix.  ,  ,  r  r^    a'^ 

4    Refute  the   objections   to  the  reasonableness  of  prayer,    drawn  from  Ood  s 

omniscience,  immutability,  independence,   decrees:  and  from  the  stability  of  Nature. 

■    So.  Presb.  Rev.,  Jan.   1870.    Art.  i.  Dr.   Girardeau.     Chalmers'  Nat   Theol. 

bk  V  ch.  3.     Dick,   Lect.  93.     McCosh,  Div.  Gov.  bk.  ii,  ch.  2,  |  5,  6.  Duke 

of  Argyll,  "  Reign  of  Law,"  ch.  2.     Sensuallstic  Phil,  of  19th  Cent.  ch.  13. 
15    What  is  the  rule  of  prayer,  and  what  the  qualities  of  acceptable  prayer  ? 

Dick,  as  above,  and  Lect.  94.     Pictet,  as  above.     Ridgley,  Qu.  185,  186. 
6    What  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  warrant  given  us  to  expect  answers  ! 
'  See   e  g..  Matt,  vii  :  7,  8  ;  Mark,  xi  :  24.     Dick,  Lect.  94.     Pictet,  as  above. 

Dr.'  Leonard  Wood's  Lectures,  95-99.     So.  Presb.    Rev.,   Jan.  1872.,  Art.  1. 

Theol.  of  Plym.,  Br.  Life  of  Trust,  or  Biogi-aphy  of  the  Rev.  Geo.  Muller  ot 

7.'  Show  that  prayer  should  be  both  secret,  social,  ejaculatory,  and  stated. 

Dick,  Lect.  94. 
8.  What  model  is  given  for  our  prayers  ?  ,•  •       c  i 

Dick,  Lect.  95. "  See  on  the  Whole,  Magee  on  Atonement,  dissertation  btli ; 

and  Dr.  Leonard  Wood's  Lectures,  95  to  99. 

ttpRAYER   is  an  offering  up  of  our  desires  unto   God  for 
^  things  agreeable  to   His  will,  in   the  name  of  Christ,  with 
confession  of  our  sins,  and  thankful  acknowl- 
I.    Definition.  edgement  of  His  mercies." 

Its  several  parts  are  stated,  in  the  Directory  for  Worship, 
to  be  adoration,  thanksgiving,  confession,  petition',  intercession 
and  pleading.     See  Directory.  Ch.  v :  §  2. 

God  alone  is  the  proper  object  of  religious  worship.     Matt 


714  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

iv  :  lO,  The  general  reason  for  this  is,  that 
Proper  Object  ^  ^^  He  alonc  possesses  the  attributes  which  are 
imphed  in  the  offer  of  reHgious  worship.  The 
Beign  who  is  to  be  worshipped  by  all  the  Church  must  be 
omniscient.  Otherwise  our  prayers  would  never  reach  His  ears. 
And  if  conveyed  to  Him,  they  would  utterly  confound  and 
overwhelm  any  finite  understanding,  in  the  attempt  to  distin- 
guish, comprehend,  and  judge  concerning  them.  Then,  more- 
over, the  being  to  whom  we  resort  in  prayer,  njust  be  all-wise, 
in  order  to  know  infallibly  what  is  best  for  us,  and  how  to  pro- 
cure it.  Such  omniscience  as  we  have  above  described  implies, 
of  course,  omnipresence.  Second.  This  Lord  must  be  infin- 
itely good,  otherwise  we  should  have  no  sufficient  warrant  to 
carry  Him  our  wants,  and  His  benevolence  would  be  over- 
taxed by  such  constant  and  innumerable  appeals.  Third.  He 
must  be  almighty,  else  He  is  no  adequate  refuge  and  depend- 
ence for  our  souls,  in  all  exigencies.  Some  most  urgent  wants 
and  dangers  might  arise,  which  only  omnipotence  could  meet. 
For  these  reasons  the  offering  of  prayer  is  a  virtual  ascrip- 
tion  of  divinity  to  its  object;  and  we  reject 
the  PCTsons  (T/Trinity"  ^^^  sucli  appeals  to  saints  and  angels  as  idol- 
atrous. For  us  sinners,  the  door  of  prayer  is 
only  opened  by  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  (Why  ?)  Now  we  have 
seen  that  God  the  Father  stands  economically  as  the  represent- 
ative of  the  whole  Trinity,  on  the  part  of  the  Godhead,  as 
Christ  the  Son  stands  as  sinner's  representative  in  that  transac- 
tion. Hence  prayer  is  usually  addressed  to  the  Father  through 
the  Son,  and  by  the  Spirit.  Eph.  ii :  i8.  But  we  must  not 
imagine  that  one  person  is  more  properly  the  object  of  prayer 
than  another.  All  are  made  alike  objects  of  worship,  in  the  apos- 
tolic benediction,  2  Cor.  xiii :  14,  in  the  formula  of  baptism,  and 
in  Rev.  i :  4.  But  more  :  we  find  Jesus  Christ,  so  to  speak,  the 
separate  object  of  worship,  in  Gen.  xviii :  23;  Josh,  v  :  14;  Acts 
vii :  59;  Rev.  i :  17:  v;  8;  Heb.  i :  6,  etc.  These  examples 
authorize  us  to  address  a  distinct  petition  to  either  of  the 
Persons. 

The  duty  of  prayer  reposes    immediately  on  God's  com- 
3.   The  Duty  Reas-    niand,    wlio  "  wills    that    men    pray    every- 
onable.    (a.)  It  Culti-    where."      I  Tim.  ii :  8.     But  this  is  a  precept 
vates    lety.  which    most    eminently  commends  itself  to 

every  man's  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God,  because  so  clearly 
founded  in  nature.  That  is  there  are  numerous  and  powerful 
reasons  proceeding  out  of  our  very  relations  to  God,  for  the 
duty  of  prayer.  That  this  is  true  is  obviously  suggested  by  the 
strength  of  the  instinct  of  devotion  in  every  rational  breast.  The 
immediate  prompting  of  the  sense  of  want  or  sin,  in  the  crea- 
ture, is  to  make  him  say  :  "  Lead  ine  to  the  Rock  that  is  higher 
than  L"  Ps.  Ixi :  2.  And  to  pray,  is  mentioned  of  Saul  as  the 
characteristic  evidence  that  he  had  learned  to  fear  God.      Acts 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  7 1 5 

ix :  II.  Wherever  there  is  religion,  true  or  false,  there 
is  prayer.  Even  the  speculative  atheist,  when  pressed 
by  danger,  has  been  known  to  belie  his  pretended  creed, 
by  calling  in  anguish  upon  the  God  whom  he  had  denied. 
This  natural  instinct  of  prayer  reposes  for  its  ground 
on  God's  perfections,  and  man's  dependence  and  wants. 
And  so  long  as  these  two  facts  remain  what  they  are, 
man  must  be  a  praying  creature.  Let  the  student  remem- 
ber, also,  that  man,  while  finite  and  dependent,  is  also  an  essen- 
tially active  creature.  Emotion,  and  the  expression  of  emotion, 
are  the  unavoidable,  because  natural  outgoings  of  his  powers. 
He  cannot  but  put  forth  his  activity  in  efforts  tending  to  the 
objects  of  his  desires ;  he  must  cease  first  to  be  man ;  and 
prayer  is  the  inevitable,  the  natural  effort  of  the  dependent 
creature,  in  view  of  exegencies  above  his  own  power.  To  tell 
him  who  believes  in  a  God,  not  to  pray,  is  to  command  him  to 
cease  to  be  a  man. 

Prayer  is  the  natural  homage  due  from  the  creature  to  his 
,  ^   „  ^  heavenly  Father.        God  being    Himself  all 

Is  Gods  Due.  11  j  J.l  10  ^      /^-  r 

blessed,  and  the  sole  Source  and  Giver  of 
blessedness,  can  receive  no  recompense  from  any  creature.  But 
is  no  form  of  homage  therefore  due  ?  To  say  this,  would  be  to 
say  that  the  creature  owes  God  nothing,  because  God  bestows 
so  much !  It  would  extirpate  religion  practically  from  the 
universe.  Now,  I  assert,  in  opposition  to  the  Rationalistic 
Deists,  who  say  that  the  only  reasonable  homage  is  a  virtuous 
life,  and  the  cultivation  of  right  emotions ;  that  prayer  also  is 
more  directly,  and  still  more  naturally,  that  reasonable  homage. 
God  must  bestow  on  man  all  the  good  he  receives  ;  then  man 
ought  to  ask  for  all  that  good.  It  is  the  homage  to  God's  benef- 
ficent  power,  appropriate  to  a  creature  dependent,  yet  intelli- 
gent and  active.  Man  ought  to  thank  God  for  all  good  ;  it  is- 
the  natural  homage  due  from  receiver  to  Giver.  Man  ought  to 
confess  all  his  sin  and  guilt ;  it  is  the  natural  homage  due  from 
sinfulness  to  sovereign  holiness.  Man  ought  to  deprecate  God's 
anger;  it  is  the  appropriate  homage  due  from  conscious  guilt 
to  power  and  righteousness.  Man  ought  to  praise  God's  per- 
fections. Thus  only  can  the  moral  intelligence  God  has  created, 
pay  to  Him  its  tribute  of  intellectual  service.  I  should  like  to 
see  the  reasoning  analyzed,  by  which  these  skeptics  are  led  to 
admit  that  the  creature  does  owe  to  God  the  homage  of  a  virtu- 
ous life  and  affections.  I  will  pledge  myself  to  show  that  the 
same  reasoning  equally  proves  he  owes  the  homage  of  prayer. 
Conceive  of  God  as  bestowing  all  the  forms  of  good  on  man 
which  his  dependent  nature  needs,  without  requiring  any 
homage  of  prayer  from  man  as  the  means  of  its  bestowal ; 
and  you  will  immediately  have,  man  being  such  as  he  is 
(an  active  being),  a  system  of  practical  atheism.  Rehg- 
ion,    relation    between    man    and    God    will    be    at    an  end. 


7l6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

True,  God  would  be  related  to  man,  but  not  man  to  God ! 
Anomalous  and  guilty  condition !  No  feeling  of  dependence, 
reverence,  gratitude,  wholesome  fear,  would  find  expression 
from  the  creature. 

This  leads  us,  third,  to   the  important  remark,  that  prayer 

^  ,,  ^^  is  the  natural  means  of  grace  appropriate  to 

Is  Means  of  Grace,      ,  i  ,  -n  •  .    •    ^        i     i  ^ 

Perse.  the  creature,     rrayer  is  not  intended  to  pro- 

duce a  change  in  God,  but  in  us.  Rev. 
Rowland  Hill  explained  to  sailors:  "The  man  in  the  skiff  at 
the  stern  of  a  man-of  war,  does  not  pull  the  ship  to  himself,  in 
hauling  at  the  line,  but  pulls  the  skiff  to  the  ship.  This  line  is 
prayer.  Prayer  does  not  draw  God  down  to  us,  but  draws  us 
up  to  God,  and  thus  establishes  the  connection."  Now,  as  we 
have  seen,  man  being  an  essentially  active  creature,  the  exercise 
of  all  those  right  affections  which  constitute  gracious  charac- 
ter necessitates  their  expression.  And  again,to  refuse  expression 
to  an  affection  chokes  it;  to  give  it  its  appropriate  expression 
fosters  and  strengthens  it.  See  examples.  We  see  at  once, 
therefore,  how  prayer  is  a  natural  and  necessary  means  for  all 
gracious  growth.  Let  us  exemplify  in  detail.  Faith  is  a  mother 
grace  to  all  others ;  but  prayer  is  the  natural  and  necessary 
expression  of  faith  ;  it  is  its  language,  its  vital  breath.  In 
spiritual  desire  the  life  of  religion  may  be  said  to  consist.  Desire 
is  implied  in  faith  itself,  for  a  man  does  not  trust  for  what  he 
does  not  want,  and  it  is  yet  more  manifest  in  hope.  For  hope 
is  but  desire,  encouraged  by  the  prospect  of  obtaining  the 
desired  object.  Repentance  includes  a  desire  for  deliverance 
from  sin  and  attainment  of  holiness.  Love  of  God  includes  a 
desire  for  communion  with  Him,  and  for  His  favour.  So  that  it 
would  not  be  very  inaccurate  to  say  that  practical  religion  con- 
sists in  the  exercise  of  holy  desires.  But  what  is  prayer,  except 
"the  offering  up  of  our  desires  to  God?"  Prayer  is  the  vital 
breath  of  religion  in  the  soul.  Again,  it  cultivates  our  sense  of 
dependence  and  of  God's  sovereignty.  By  confessing  our 
sins,  the  sense  of  sin  is  deepened.  By  rendering  thanks,  grati- 
tude is  enlivened.  By  adoring  the  divine  perfections,  we  are 
changed  into  the  same  image,  from  glory  to  glory.  From  all 
this  it  is  apparent  that  prayer  is  the  Christian's  vital  breath.  If 
God  had  not  required  it,  the  Christian  would  be  compelled  to 
offer  it  by  his  own  irrepressible  promptings.  If  he  were  taught 
to  believe  that  it  was  not  onl}-  useless,  but  wrong,  he  would 
doubtless  offer  it  in  his  heart  in  spite  of  himself,  even  though 
he  were  obliged  to  accompany  it  with  a  petition  that  God 
would  forgive  the  offering.  To  have  no  prayer  is,  for  man,  to 
have  no  religion. 

But  last,  and  chiefly,  prayc  is  a  means  of  grace,  because 

^, .  o     •   r^  J  •    J    G.06.  has  appointed   it  as  the  instrument  of 
Chiefly;  IS  Ordained  ,  y\         tt-     <--    •   •     1  •    n  t     • 

in  God's  Promises.         vad^n  s  receiving  His  Spintal  influences.     It  is 

enough  for  the  Christian  to  know  that  all  his 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  717 

growth  in  grace  is  dependent,  and  that  God  hath  ordained : 
"he  that  asketh  receiveth." 

Thus  we  see  the  high  and  essential  grounds  on  which  the 
duty  of  prayer  rests,  grounds  laid  in  the  very  natures  of  God 
and  of  man,  and  in  the  relations  between  the  two. 

But  it  is  from  the  nature  of  God  that  the  rationalistic 
objections  are  drawn  against  the  reasonable- 
of'pVay^'obS;^^^^  ness  Of  the  duty._  It  is  said,  "Since  God  is 
omniscient,  there  is  no  meaning  in  our  telling 
Him  our  wants,  for  He  knows  them  already,  better  than  we  do. 
Since  He  is  good.  He  already  feels  every  proper  impulse  to 
make  us  happy,  and  to  relieve  our  pains;  and  does  not  need 
any  persuading  on  our  part,  to  incline  Him  to  mercy.  And 
since  He  is  immutable,  and  has  already  determined  from  eter- 
nity, every  act  of  His  future  agency,  by  an  unchangeable 
decree,  to  hope  to  change  God  by  our  importunity,  is  worse 
than  useless ;  it  is  a  reproach  to  Him.  Hence  there  is  nothing 
for  the  wise  man  to  do,  but  to  receive  His  allotments  with  calm 
submission,  and  to  honour  Him  by  imitating  His  moral  perfec- 
tions." 

We  reply :  to  him  who  had  any  reverence  for  the   Scrip- 

^        1  D    1  ture    these    assertions  of  God's   wisdom  and 

(jeneral  Keply.  ,  111 

goodness  would  be  arguments  to  prove, 
instead  of  disproving,  the  propriety  of  prayer.  For  has  not 
this  wise  and  good  being  commanded  prayer  ?  Has  He  not 
seen  fit  to  appoint  prayer  as  the  instrument  for  receiving  His 
purposed  blessings  ?  Then,  to  the  humble  mind,  there  is  the 
best  proof  that  prayer  is  reasonable.  But  farther,  we  have 
already  remarked  that,  so  far  as  prayer  is  intended  to  produce 
any  change,  it  is  not  a  change  in  God,  but  in  us.  He  does  not 
command  it  because  He  needs  to  be  informed  of  our  wants,  or 
to  be  made  willing  to  help.  He  commands  it  because  He  has 
seen  fit  to  ordain  it  as  the  appointed  means  for  reception  of 
His  blessings.  And  we  have  seen  abundant  reasons  why  it  is  a 
suitable  means  to  be  thus  ordained  :  a  wise  means,  a  right 
means.  It  is  a  necessary  and  instinctive  outgoing  of  the  rightly 
feeling  soul.  It  is  the  proper  homage  for  man  to  render  God. 
It  is  an  influence  wholesome  for  man's  soul  itself.  And  now, 
God  having  seen  these  good  reasons  (doubtless  with  others)  for 
ordaining  prayer  as  the  means  of  receiving  His  favour  ;  there 
is  nothing  in  His  wisdom,  goodness,  or  immutability,  inconsist- 
ent with  His  regular  enforcement  of  the  rule,  "  ask,  and  ye 
shall  receive." 

Not  in  His  goodness  :  For  if  any  one  should  take  such  a 

^   ,,     „         ,  view  of  the  Divine  benevolence  as  to  suppose 

Gods    Benevolence     ,1     -    •.       -n    •  1        ,  ,     ^^ 

No  Objection.  ^^^^^  ^^  Will   m  ever)^  case  bestow  on  the  crea- 

ture such  blessings  as  God's  nature  and  pur- 
pose permit,  without  requiring  to  be  persuaded  by  the 
creature's  use  of  means,  the  whole   course   of  His  providence- 


71 8  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

would  refute  it.  God  is  benevolent  in  bestowing  on  multitudes 
of  farmers  the  fruits  of  the  earth.  If  any  one  trusts  to  His 
immutable  goodness,  without  plowing  and  sowing  his  field,  he 
will  certainly  be  disappointed.  The  truth  is  just  here  :  that 
God  is  infinitely  benevolent,  but  still,  it  is  a  benevolence  exer- 
cised always  in  harmony  with  His  wisdom,  and  with  all  His 
other  attributes.  The  question  then  is :  Have  God's  wisdom, 
sovereignty,  and  other  attributes,  impelled  Him  to  decide  that 
He  cannot  consistently  give  some  particular  gifts  except  to  those 
that  ask?  If  so,  it  is  vain  to  argue  from  His  infinite  goodness. 
Nor  do  God's  decree  and  unchangeableness  show  that  it  is 

inconsistent  in   Him  to  answer  prayer.     His 
His  Immutability  no     •  ,    i  -i-,        i  ,  •   ^    •  i-  vi 

Objection.  mimutability  does  not  consist  in  acting  with 

a  mechanical  sameness,  irrespective  of  change 
of  circumstances.  It  is  an  immutability  of  principles.  The 
sameness  of  principle  dictates  a  change  of  conduct  when 
outward  circumstances  change.  To  refuse  to  change  in  such 
cases  would  often  be  mutability.  And  the  familiar  old  answer 
here  applies,  that  God's  decree  embraces  the  means  as  much  as 
the  end.  Wherever  it  was  His  eternal  purpose  that  any  crea- 
ture should  receive  grace,  it  was  His  purpose  equally  that  he 
should  ask.  In  a  word,  these  objections  are  just  the  same  with 
those  of  the  vulgar  fatalist,  who  objects  that,  because  "what  is  to 
be,  will  be,"  therefore  it  is  of  no  use  to  make  any  effort.  There 
is  no  difference  whatever  in  the  refinement  or  wisdom  of  the 
objectors.  To  be  consistent,  these  rationalists  who  refuse  to 
pray  should  also  refuse  to  plow,  to  sow,  to  cultivate,  to  take 
medicine  when  sick,  to  watch  against  danger,  &c. 

The  difficulty,  however,  which  is  now  thought  most  formid- 
able, and  is  most  frequently  advanced  by 
bility''of  Nature!™  ^'  Rationalists,  is  that  drawn  from  the  stability 
of  nature.  The  argument  of  the  objection 
is,  that  except  where  God  acts  supernaturally,  as  in  regenera- 
tion and  the  resurrection,  He  acts  only  through  second  causes  ; 
that  the  tie  between  cause  and  effect  is  efficient,  and  the 
result  regular ;  so  that  each  effect  is  potentially  in  its  ante- 
cedent cause,  which  is,  very  probably,  an  event  that  has  already 
occurred,  and  is  therefore  irrevocable.  Hence,  it  is  impossible 
but  that  the  effect  must  follow,  pray  as  we  may  against  it; 
unless  God  will  miraculously  break  the  ties  of  natural  causa- 
tion ;  but  that,  we  know,  He  will  not  do. 

Now,  this  is  either  an  argument  «<-/  ignoj-antiavi,  or  it   is 
„      ■  1  r    1 '  atheistic.    The  simple,  popular  (and  sufficient) 

view  which  refutes  it  is :  That  God  governs 
this  world  in  every  natural  event  through  His  special  provi- 
dence ;  and  the  regular  laws  of  nature  are  only  the  uniform 
modes  of  those  second  causes,  which  He  employs  to  do  so. 
Now,  the  objection  is  simply  this :  that  God  has  constructed  a 
machine,  which  is  so  perfect,  and  so  completely  His,  that  He 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  7I9 

cannot  modify  its  action  without  breaking  it !  That  is,  His 
success  has  been  so  complete,  in  constructing  this  machine  of 
nature  to  work  His  intended  ends,  that  He  has  shut  Himself 
out  of  His  own  handiwork  !  Such  is  the  absurdity  which  the 
matter  must  wear  in  the  hands  of  a  theist.  Nature  is  a 
machine  which  God  made  and  now  uses  to  effect  a  set  of  ends, 
all  of  which  were  foreseen  and  purposed ;  and  among  which 
were  all  the  destined  answers  to  the  acceptable  prayers  foreseen 
to  be  uttered.  Of  course  God  has  not  so  made  it  as  to  exclude 
Himself  and  His  own  purposes.  How  does  He  manage  the 
machine  to  make  it  work  those  purposes  ?  We  may  not  know 
how;  but  this  is  no  evidence  that  He  does  not.  The  inference 
from  His  general  wisdom  and  promise  is  proof  enough  that  He 
can  and  does.  A  very  good  illustration  may  be  taken  from  a 
railroad  train.  It  is  propelled,  not  by  an  animal  which  has 
senses  to  hear  command,  but  by  a  steam  engine.  The  mechan- 
ical force  exerted  is  irresistible  by  man.  The  conditions  of  its 
movement  are  the  most  rigidly  methodical ;  only  up  and  down 
one  track,  within  certain  times.  But  there  is  a  Conductor  ;  and 
his  personal  will  can  arrest  it  at  the  request  of  the  feeblest  child. 

But  to  be  more  exact :  The  objector  urges  that  the  general 
laws  of  nature  are  stable.  Grant  it.  What 
Gena^l^Law.^^  °  ^  ^^  nature?  It  is  a  universe  of  matter  and 
mind  related,  and  not  of  matter  only.  Now 
only  postulate  that  desire,  prayer,  and  the  answers  to  prayer 
are  among  those  general  laws,  which,  as  a  complex  whole,  have 
been  assigned  to  regulate  nature,  and  the  uniformity  of  nature 
only  confirms  the  hope  of  answers  to  prayers.  Has  the  phil- 
osopher explored  all  the  ties  of  natural  causation  made  by  God  ? 
He  does  not  pretend  so.  Then  it  may  be  that  among  the  unex- 
plored ties  are  some  subtle  and  unexplained  bonds  which  con- 
nect prayers  with  their  answers  as  natural  causes  and  effects. 
And  all  that  we  have  said,  in  showing  how  natural  prayer  is  to 
creatures,  makes  the  postulate  probable. 

Again.  Does  natural  law  govern  the  universe  ?  Or,  does 
God  Rules  by  His  ^ro*^  govern  it  by  natural  law  ?  Men  perpet- 
Laws  of  Nature  as  He  ually  cheat  themselves  with  the  idea  that  law 
^^^^^^^*  is  a  power,  whereas  it  is  simply  the  method 

of  a  power.  Whence  the  power  of  the  natural  second  cause  ? 
Originally  from  God ;  and  its  working  is  maintained  and  regu- 
lated by  God.  Hence  it  is  utterly  improbable  (whether  we  can 
comprehend  or  not)  that  God  should  have  so  arranged  His  own 
power  communicated  to  His  works  as  to  obstruct  His  own  per- 
sonal will.  Remember  that  God  is  personal,  and  not  a  mere 
anivia  vutndi.     He  is  a  sovereign  moral  Person. 

Last,  recurring  to  the  views  given  in  explanation  of  God's 

providence  (Lect.  xxv),  you  will  be  reminded, 

allTecoSTauTes!  '"    that  power  in  second  causes  only  acts  when 

the  suitable  relations  are  established  between 


720  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

them  and  those  things  which  are  to  be  the  recipients  of  the 
effects  :  that  among  all  possible  relations,  many  might  be  fruit- 
ful of  no  effects,  and  others  of  very  different  effects :  That 
hence,  there  is  here,  room  for  the  perpetual,  present  manipu- 
lation of  the  invisible  Hand  in  providence.  Thus,  God  always 
has  resources  to  modify  the  acting  of  natural  causes,  they  still 
acting  according  to  their  natures.  As  I  remarked  :  All  God's 
providence  is  special ;  and  the  supernatural  is  always  with  the 
natural ;  else  the  latter  could  not  be. 

The  proposal  has  been  made  by  modern  Materialists,  to 
test  the  efficacy  of  prayer  by  a  physical  test. 
Prayer.  ^"^^  ^^  °  such  as  is  applied  to  try  the  efficacy  of  mate- 
rial causes.  The  absurdity,  as  well  as  impiety 
of  this  proposal  appears  from  two  remarks.  One  is,  that  the 
physical  answers  to  prayer;  or  in  other  words,  those  effects 
which  confer  physical  change  and  benefit,  belong  to  that  class 
of  things  which,  as  we  shall  show  anon,  God  has  never  bound 
Himself,  by  any  categorical  promise,  to  bestow.  We  are 
encouraged  to  pray  for  them  ;  but  God  holds  the  answer  con- 
tingent to  us,  deciding  to  give  or  withhold  according  as  He 
sees  best  in  His  secret  sovereignty.  Hence,  in  the  only  cases 
where  a  physical  test  could  possibly  apply,  there  is  no  definite 
promise  to  be  tested.  The  other  remark  is:  that  unless  the 
atheist's  theory  be  demonstrated,  it  will  remain  at  least  possi- 
ble that  we  shall  find  a  personal  will  dispensing  the  answer  to 
prayer.  This  proposal  then  requires  this  venerable  Person  to 
submit  Himself  to  an  additional  test  of  His  fidelity,  after  He  has 
given  His  promise;  and  that  on  a  demand  which  may  always 
appear  to  Him  petulant  and  insolent.  So  that,  unless  the  pro- 
posed test  is  guilty  of  the  sophism  of  begging  the  very  ques- 
tion to  be  ascertained,  it  is  always  presumable,  that  this  majes- 
tic Person  may  choose  to  refuse  all  response  to  the  proposed 
test,  and  may  deem  this  refusal  necessary  to  His  self-respect. 
In  the  parallel  case,  there  is  every  probability  that  anyone  of 
these  Materialists  would  be  silent,  and  stand  on  his  dignity.  If 
there  is  a  God,  (the  thing  to  be  ascertained  in  this  inquiry)  shall 
He  not  consult  His  self-respect?  The  proposed  method  of 
inquiry  is  then  worthless. 

The  proper  rule  of  prayer  is  the  whole  Word  of  God.  Not 
only  are  its  instances  of  inspired  devotion 
5.  Rule  of  rayei.  ^^^  exemplars,  and  its  promises  our  warrant; 
its  precepts  are  the  measure  of  our  petitions,  and  its  threaten- 
ings  the  stimulants.  There  is  no  part  of  Scripture  which  may 
not  minister  to  the  guidance  of  the  Christian's  prayers.  But 
further,  the  Word  of  God  is  the  rule  of  our  prayers  also  in  this 
sense,  that  all  which  it  does  not  authorize,  is  excluded.  Prayer 
being  a  homage  to  God,  it  is  for  Him  to  say  what  worship  He 
will  accept ;  all  else  is  not  homage,  but  presumption.  Again, 
both  man's  blindness  and  corruption,  and  God's  infinitude  for- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  721 

bid  that  we  should  undertake  to  devise  acts  of  worship,  of  our 
own  motion.  They  will  be  too  apt  to  partake  of  some  of  our 
depravity,  or  else  to  lead  in  some  way,  unforeseen  to  us,  to 
developments  of  depravity.  And  God's  nature  is  too  inscru- 
table to  our  feeble  minds,  for  us  to  undertake  to  infer  from  it, 
except  as  we  are  guided  by  the  light  of  the  Word.  Hence,  the 
strict  Protestant  eschews  "  will  worship"  as  a  breach  of  the 
decalogue. 

When  we  examine  the  inspired  rule  of  prayer,  we  find  that, 
to  be  acceptable,  it  must  be  sincere  and  hearty; 

abS^'pra  CT°^  ^''''^''^'    ^^  ^^^^  ^^   addressed  to    God  with  faith  in 
^^^^^*  Christ ;  it   must  be   for  objects  agreeable  to 

God's  will ;  it  must  be  prompted  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  it  must 
be  accompanied  with  genuine  repentance  and  gratitude.  See 
Ps.  Ixii  :  8  ;  Jer.  xxix  :  13  ;  Jno.  xiv  :  6  ;  i  Jno.  v  :  14,  15  ; 
Rom.  viii  :  26  ;  Phil,  iv  :  6,  7  ;  i  Jno.  iii  :  22  ;  Ps.  Ixvi  :  18  ; 
Heb.  xi  :  6,  &c. 

The  more  immediate  model  which  God  has  given  for  our 
prayer,  is  the  Lord's  prayer.  That  it  was  not  intended  for  a 
liturgy  to  be  servilely  followed,  our  authors  have  shown,  in  their 
discussions  of  liturgies.  But  that  it  was  intended  both  as  a 
general  guide  in  the  structure  of  our  own  petitions,  and  as  a 
form  whose  very  words  are  to  be  employed  by  us  on  proper 
occasions,  is  manifest.  cf.  Matt,  vi  :  9;  Luke  xi  :  2.  The 
most  plausible  objection  to  it,  as  a  model  for  Christians  is,  that 
it  contains  no  express  reference  to  a  Mediator,  and  answer 
through  His  merit  and  intercession.  The  answer  is,  that  it  is 
an  Old  Testament  prayer  :  is  intended  as  such,  because  that 
dispensation  was  still  standing.  When  it  was  about  to  close, 
Christ  completed  this  feature  of  it,  by  enjoining  the  use  of  His 
name.     See  John  xiv  :  13  ;  xv  :  16  ;  xvi  :  23,  24. 

We  apprehend  that  there  is  much  vagueness  in  the  views 
of  Christians  concerning  the  nature  and  ex- 
rant  f(^^Answer  ^^^'^'  ^^"^  °^  the  warrant  which  they  have  to  expert 
an  answer  to  their  prayers.  Some  err  by  de- 
fect, forming  no  definite  view  of  the  ground  on  which  their 
faith  is  entitled  to  rest ;  and  consequently,  approaching  the 
throne  of  Grace  with  no  lively  hopes  whatever.  Others  err  by 
excess,  holding  the  promises  in  a  sense  God  did  not  intend  them 
to  bear ;  and  consequently  their  hopes  are  fanatical  and  super- 
stitious. Now,  in  order  that  our  faith  may  be  firm,  it  must  be 
correct  and  intelligent.  The  consequence  of  these  erroneous 
views  ultimately  is  disappointment,  and  hence,  either  self-accu- 
sation, or  skepticism. 

The  warrant  for  prayer  is  of  course  to  be  sought,  immedi- 
ately, in  the  promises.     Of  these  some  seem 
scrnTeSd  Ref^tecP^'    ^^^  emphatic  :  e.  g..  Matt,  vii  :  7  ;  Mark  xi : 
24.     On  promises  of  the  latter  class  especi- 
ally, some  have  built  a  theory  of  prayer,  thus  :  that  the  only 
46* 


722 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


reason  any  prayer  of  one  in  a  state  of  grace,  and  actuated  in 
the  main  by  pious  motives,  is  not  specifically  and  infallibly 
answered,  is,  that  it  was  not  offered  in  faith,  and  that  wherever 
such  a  saint  fully  believes  that  he  shall  receive  that  which  he 
asks,  he  will  receive  it,  as  surely  as  inspiration.  And  such 
prayer  it  was  the  fashion  to  dignify  with  the  title,  "the  prayer  of 
faith,"  among  some  religionists.  In  opposition,  I  would  urge 
that  common  sense  refutes  it ;  and  shows  that  practically  there 
is  a  limitation  to  these  general  promises  of  answer  to  prayer. 
Who  believes  that  he  can,  provided  his  motives  are  in  the  main 
pious,  pray  away  a  spell  of  illness,  or  raise  up  a  sick  friend,  or 
convert  an  individual  sinner,  with  infallible  certainty  ?  But  may 
they  not  put  in  a  saving  clause  by  saying :  "  Such  prayers  are 
dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost?  This  makes  all  right."  Ans. : 
The  Christian  has  no  mode  of  distinguishing  the  specific  cases 
of  spiritual  impulse  in  his  own  heart ;  because  the  Holy  Ghost 
operates  in  and  through  his  natural  capacities.  Hence,  to  the 
Christian,  the  universal  warrant  is  practically  lacking.  It  is 
manifestly  incompetent  to,  the  Christian  to  say,  in  advance  of 
the  answer :  The  Spirit  dictates  this  prayer  beyond  doubt. 
Second  :  Scripture  refutes  it ;  for  there  are  clear  cases  of  peti- 
tions of  Bible  saints,  made  in  faith,  piety,  urgency,  and  not 
specifically  answered.  See  2  Sam.  xii  :  i6,  19  ;  2  Cor.  xii  :  8- 
10  :  and  above  all,  Matt,  xxvi  :  39.  And  third:  We  can  hardly 
suppose  that  God  would  abdicate  His  omniscience  in  His  deal- 
ings towards  the  very  objects  of  His  redeeming  love,  and  make 
their  misguided,  though  pious  desires  the  absolute  rule  of  His 
conduct  towards  them.  This  would  be  the  literal  result,  were 
He  absolutely  pledged  to  do  for  shortsighted  Christians  exactly 
what  they,  with  pious  motives,  ask  of  Him.  We  may  add  here, 
that  such  an  assumption  is  refuted  by  God's  claim  to  chastise 
believers  for  their  profit.  They  of  course  pray,  and  innocently 
pray  for  exemption.  ("  Remove  Thy  stroke  from  me  ;  for  I  am 
consumed  by  the  blow  of  Thine  hand.")  If  God  were  under 
bond  to  hear  every  prayer  of  faith.  He  would  have  to  lay  down 
the  rod  in  each  case,  as  soon  as  it  was  taken  up. 

There  is  then,  of  course,  some  practical  limitation  in  these 

general  promises.     What   is   it  ?     I  answer, 
Scriptural  Limitations    -^  j     ^     ^^  f         j  jj^  ^|^g  ^l^^^g  tenour  of  Scrip- 
to  Warrant.  at  h       •         1        1  r 

ture.     And   generally  m   the  language  01   i 

Jno.  v  :  14.  All  our  prayers  shall  be  specifically  answered  in 
God's  time  and  way,  but  with  literal  and  absolute  accuracy,  if 
they  are  believing  and  pious  prayers,  and  for  things  according 
to  God's  will.  Now  there  are  only  two  ways  to  find  out  what 
things  are  such ;  one  is  by  special  revelation,  as  in  the  case  of 
faith  of  miracles,  and  petitions  for  them  ;  the  other  is  by  the 
Bible.  Here  the  explanation  of  that  erroneous  view  of  the 
warrant  of  prayer,  above  described,  is  made  easy  and  plain.  It 
is  said  that  if  the  Christian  prays  with  right  motives,  and  with 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  723 

an  assured  belief  that  he  shall  obtain,  he  will  obtain  ;  no  matter 
what  he  asks,  (unless  it  be  something  unlawful).  Yes,  but  what 
warrant  has  he  for  the  belief  that  he  shall  obtain  ?  Faith,  with- 
out an  intelligible  warrant,  is  sheer  presumption.  Suppose,  for 
instance,  the  object  of  petition  is  the  recovery  of  a  sick  friend  ; 
where  does  the  applicant  read  God's  pledge  of  a  specific  answer 
to  that  prayer  ?  Certainly  not  in  Scripture.  Does  he  pretend 
a  direct  spiritual  communication  ?  Hardly.  He  has  no  specific 
warrant  at  all ;  and  if  he  works  himself  up  into  a  notion  that 
he  is  assured  of  the  answer,  it  is  but  a  baseless  fantasy,  rather 
insulting  than  honourable  to  God.  I  know  that  pious  biography 
is  full  of  supposed  instances  of  this  kind,  as  when  Luther  is 
said  to  have  prayed  for  the  recovery  of  Melancthon.  These  are 
the  follies  of  good  men  ;  and  yet  God's  abounding  mercy  may 
in  some  cases  answer  prayers  thus  blemished. 

We  return  then  to  Scripture,  and  ask  again,  what  is  the 
Two  Classes  of  extent  of  the  warrant  there  found  ?  The 
Good.  The  Warrant  answer  is,  that  God,  both  by  promise  and 
for  First  Only  is  Abso-  example,  clearly  holds  out  two  classes  of 
objects  for  which  Christians  pray.  One  is  the 
class  of  which  an  instance  has  just  been  cited  —  objects  natur- 
ally desirable,  and  in  themselves  innocent,  '^^hich  yet  are  not 
essential  to  redemption  ;  such  as  recovery  from  sickness, 
recovery  of  friends,  good  name,  daily  bread,  deliverance  from 
persecution,  conversion  of  particular  sinners,  &c.,  &c.  It  is 
right  to  pray  for  such  things ;  it  is  even  Commanded  :  and  we 
have  ground,  in  the  benevolence,  love,  and  power  of  God,  and 
tender  sympathy  of  the  Mediator,  to  hope  for  the  specific 
answer.  But  still  the  truest  believer  will  offer  those  prayers 
with  doubts  of  receiving  the  specific  answer ;  for  the  simple 
reason  that  God  has  nowhere  specifically  promised  to  bestow  it. 
The  enlightened  believer  urges  such  petitions,  perhaps  warmly  : 
but  still  all  are  conditioned  on  an  "  if  it  be  possible,"  "  if  it  be 
consistent  with  God's  secret  will."  And  he  does  not  know 
whether  he  shall  receive  or  not,  just  because  that  will  is  still 
secret.  But  such  prayers,  offered  with  this  general  trust  in 
God's  power,  benevolence  and  better  wisdom,  and  offered  in 
pious  motives,  are  accepted,  even  though  not  answered,  cf.  2 
Cor.  xii  :  8,  with  vs.' 9;  Matt,  xxvi  :  39;  with  Heb.  v  :  7.  God 
does  not  give  the  very  thing  sought,  though  innocent  in  itself; 
He  had  never  promised  it :  but  He  "  makes  all  things  work 
together  for  good  to  the  petitioner."  This  should  be  enough  to 
satisfy  every  saint. 

The  other  class  of  objects  of  prayer  is,  the  benefits  accom- 
panying redemption  ;  all  the  gifts  which  make  up,  in  the  elect, 
growth  in  grace,  perseverance,  pardon,  sanctification,  complete 
redemption.  For  these  we  pray  with  full  assurance  of  a  spe- 
cific answer,  because  God  has  told  us,  that  it  is  His  purpose 
specifically  to  bestow  them  in  answer  to  all  true  prayer.     See 


724  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

Ps.  Ixxxiv  :  II  ;  Luke  xi  :  13:  i  Thess.  iv  :  3  ;  Luke  xii  :  32; 
John  XV  :  8.  So,  we  have  a  warrant  to  pray  in  faith,  for  the 
grace  to  do  the  things  which  God's  word  makes  it  our  duty  to 
do.  In  all  such  cases,  our  expectation  of  an  answer  is  entitled 
to  be  as  definite  as  was  that  of  Apostles,  when  inspired  with  the 
faith  of  miracles.  God  may  not  give  it  in  the  shape  or  chan- 
nel we  expected  ;  He  .may  choose  to  try  our  faith  by  unex- 
pected delays,  but  the  answer  is  sure,  because  definitely  prom- 
ised, in  His  own  time  and  way.  Here  we  may  say,  Habak. 
ii:3,""For  the  vision  is  yet  for  an  appointed  time,  but  at  the 
end  it  shall  speak,  and  not  lie  ;  though  it  tarry,  wait  for  it ; 
because  it  will  surely  come,  it  will  not  tarry." 

In  addition  to  the  promises,  our  expectation  of  an  answer 

_      .      ^    ^       ,     to  prayer  is   strengthened  by  the   following 
Promises  Conhnned.  *  •     "^  -j       ^-  /    \    mn 

precious   considerations,  (a)   When   we  pray 

for  things  agreeable  to  God's  will,  we  virtually  pray  for  what 
will  promote  His  glory  and  good  pleasure.  We  are  like  the 
industrious  servant  petitioning  to  a  wise  master,  for  a  new  tool 
or  implement  in  order  to  work  better  for  him.  (b)  Such  prayers 
are  prompted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  (Rom.  viii :  27), 
are  surely  destined  to  be  answered,  because  the  good  and  truth- 
ful God  would  not  evoke  such  desires  only  in  order  to  repulse 
them,  (c)  Our  union  to  Christ  confirms  this ;  because  we  know 
that  the  sap  of  spiritual  affections  circulates  in  us  from  Him  our 
.Root :  so  that  the  way  we  come  to  have  a  good  desire  is,  by 
His  having  it  first.  Now,  if  He  desires  that  thing  too,  we  shall 
be  like  to  get  it.  (d)  Christ's  intercession,  so  tender  and  gener- 
ous, so  prevalent,  and  perpetual,  presents  the  most  glorious 
ground  of  hope.  He  rejects  no  pious  applicant.  He  ever 
liveth  to  intercede.  The  Farther  heareth  Him  always.  Hence, 
Heb.  iv  :  15,  16. 

We  are  commanded  to  "  pray  always,"  "  without  ceasing." 
.  7.  Prayer  Should  be  That  is,  the  temper  of  prayer  should  be 
Social  and  Secret,  always  prevalent:  and  ejaculatory  prayer 
Stated  and  Ejaculatory.  gj^^^jj  ^^  habitual,  and  frequent  as  our 
spiritual  exigencies.  But  it  is  also  our  duty  to  pray  statedly  : 
the  morning  and  evening,  at  least,  being  obviously  proper 
stated  seasons  for  secret,  and  the  Lord's  day,  at  least,  for  social 
and  public  prayer.  The  reason  is,  that  man,  a  finite  creature, 
controlled  so  greatly  by  habit,  cannot  well  perform  any  contin- 
uous duty,  without  a  season  appropriated  to  it;  and  that,  a 
stated  season.  He  needs  all  the  aids  of  opportunity  and  leis- 
ure. Nor  is  there  any  incompatibility  of  such  stated  seasons, 
with  our  dependence  on  the  Holy  Ghost  for  ability  to  offer 
acceptable  prayer.  Some  Christians  seem  to  be  infected  with 
the  Quaker  idea,  that  because  all  true  prayer  is  prompted  by 
the  Spirit,  it  is  best  not  to  attempt  the  duty  at  the  stated  hour, 
if  His  afflatus  is  not  felt.  The  folly  of  this  appears  from  our 
Saviour's  words :    "  Behold   I   stand  at  the  door  and  knock." 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  725 

The  Spirit  is  always  waiting  to  prompt  prayer.  His  command 
is,  to  pray  always.  If,  at  the  appointed  hour,  an  indisposition 
to  pray  is  experienced,  it  is  our  duty  to  regard  this  as  a  marked 
symptom  of  spiritual  want;  and  to  make  it  a  plea  for  the 
petition,  "  Lord,  teach  us  to  pray." 

Again:  Man  must  join  in  acts  of  social  and  public  worship, 
because  he  is  a  social  being ;  and  hence  he  derives  important 
aids  in  the  difficult  work  of  keeping  alive  the  spirit  of  prayer 
within  him.  It  is  also  his  duty  to  glorify  God  before  his  fellow- 
creatures,  by  these  public  acts  of  homage,  and  to  seek  to  benefit 
his  fellows  by  the  example  of  them.  Yet  the  duty  of  public 
worship  does  not  exclude  that  of  secret.  See  Matt,  vi  :  6. 
Every  soul  is  bound  to  pray  statedly  in  secret,  because  of  the 
example  of  Christ  and  the  saints  ;  because  the  relation  between 
God  and  the  soul  is  direct  and  personal,  admitting  no  daysman 
but  Christ :  because  secret  prayer  is  the  best  test  and  cultiva- 
tion of  the  spirit  of  true  devotion  :  because  each  soul  has 
special  sins,  mercies,  wants,  of  which  he  should  speak  confi- 
dentially to  his  God ;  and  because  there  is  in  secret  prayer  the 
most  childlike  and  unrestrained  intercourse  between  God  and 
the  soul.  .  So  important  are  these  facts,  that  we  may  usually 
say,  that  he  who  has  no  habit  of  secret  prayer  has  no  spirit  of 
prayer  at  all. 


LECTURE  LXI. 

THE  SACRAMENTS. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  is  a  sacrament  ? 

See  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  27,  §  i.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xix,  Qu.  i.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch. 
5,  §4.  Dick.  Lect.  86.  Ridgley,  Qu.  162.  Council  of  Trent.  Sess.  7.  Can. 
1-13,  and  Catechism.  Rom.  pt.  ii,  Qu.  2,  3. 

2.  Are  the  sacraments  mere  symbols  or  badges,  as  say  the  Socinians,  or  also  seals 
of  the  Covenant  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  5.     Hill  and  Ridgley,  as  above. 

3.  What   the  parts  of  the  sacrament  ?     And  what   the  quaUties  requisite  in   the 
material  parts  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  3.  Dick,  Lect.  86.  Ridgley,  Qu.  163.  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch. 
xxvii,  §  2. 

4.  What  is  the  sacramental  union  between  these  parts  ? 
Turrettin,  Qu.  4.    Dick,  as  above. 

5.  How  many  sacraments  under  the  New  Testament? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  as  above,  §  4.  Turretttn,  Qu.  31,  Council  of  Trent,  as  above, 
and  Rom.  Catechism,  pt.  ii,  Qu.  11,  12.  Dick,  Lect.  87.  Burnett,  on  the 
Thirty-nme  Articles,  Art.  25.     So.  Presbn.  Rev.,  Art.  i,  Jan.  1876, 

6.  How  many  sacraments  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  ;  and  what  their  relation 
to  those  of  the  New  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  as  above.  §  5.  Rom.  Cat.,  pt.  ii,  Qu.  9.  Dick,  Lect.  87. 
Turrettin,  Qu.  9.     Calvin  Institutes,  bk.  iv,  ch.  14,  ^  23-end. 

THHE  doctrine    of  the  sacraments    is   closely  dependent  on 
that  of  the  Church ;  and  is  treated  by  many  authorities. 
Doctrine  of  Church    as   Strictly  consequent  thereon ;  as  by  Turr 
and  Sacraments   De-    rettin.     It  may  also  be    remarked,  that  the 
P^""^^"^-  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  a  head  of  the  theo- 

logy of  redemption ;  and  may  be  treated  as  such,  as  well  as  a 
source  for  practical  rules  of  church-order.  But  as  that  doctrine 
is  ably  treated  in  another  department  of  this  Seminary,  I  shall 
assume  its  main  principles,  and  use  them  as  foundations  for  the 
discussion  of  the  sacraments,  without  intruding  into  that  circle 
of  inquiry. 

Let  us  remember  then,  that  the  true  Church  of  Christ  is 

■r^  c  ■.■       rz-u     ,.    invisible,  and  consists  of  the  whole   body  of 
Dehnition  of  Church     ,1  rr     i.      11  11    j       t-i     ^    ^1 

and  its  Attributes.  tne  ettectuaily  called  :    Ihat  the  same  name 

is  given,  by  accommodation,  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, to  a  visible  body,  consisting  of  all  those  throughout  the 
world,  who  make  a  credible  profession  of  the  true  religion, 
together  with  their  children  :  That  the  essential  properties  of 
unity,  holiness,  indefectibility,  catholicity,  belong  to  the  invisi- 
ble, and  not  the  visible  Church  :  That  God  has  defined  the  visi- 
ble Church  catholic,  by  giving  it,  in  all  its  parts,  a  ministry,  the 
Word,  the  sacraments  and  other  ordinances,  and  some  measure 
of  His  sanctifying  Spirit:  That  this  visible  Church  is  traced 
back  at  least  to  the  family  of  Abraham,  where  it  was  organ- 
ized by  God's  own  authority  on  a  gospel  and  ecclesiastical  cov- 
726 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  727 

enant :  That  this  visible  Church  is  substantially  the  same 
under  both  dispensations,  retaining  under  the  New,  the  same 
membership  and  nature,  though  with  a  suitable  change  of  cir- 
cumstances, which  it  had  under  the  Old  Dispensation  ;  and  that 
out  of  this  visible  Church  catholic  there  is  no  ordinary  possi- 
bility of  salvation.  .In  this  visible  Church,  the  sacraments  are 
both  badges  of  membership,  and  sealing  ordinances.  They 
also  represent,  apply,  and  seal,  the  chief  truths  of  redemption. 
Hence,  the  importance  of  their  discussion.  They  will  be  found 
to  bear  a  close  relation  to  our  whole  system,  both  of  doctrine 
and  church-order. 

When  one  examines  the  Scriptures,  and  sees  the  brief  and 

simple  statements  there  given  concerning  the 

I.  Bible  Ideas  of  Sa-    gacraments,  he  will   be  very  apt  to  feel  that 

crament  Simple.  '.  ,  •t>  ^.^ 

the  place  assigned  them  m  many  rrotestant, 

and  all  Romish  systems  of  divinity,  is  inordinately  large.  This 
is  an  evidence  of  the  strong  tendency  of  mankind  to  formalism. 
In  our  treatment  of  the  subject,  much  of  the  length  assigned  it 
will  arise  from  our  attempts  to  rebut  these  formal  and  super- 
stitious tendencies,  and  reduce  the  sacraments  to  their  Scriptu- 
ral simplicity. 

According  to  the  definition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  ch. 
27,  §1,2,  there  are  four  things  which  concur 
^Constituted  of  Four  to  constitute  a  sacrament.  (a.)  A  visible  ma- 
material  element,  (b.)  A  covenanted  grace 
of  graces,  aptly  symbolized  and  represented  to  the  senses  by 
the  element,  (c.)  A  mutual  pledge  and  seal  of  this  covenant 
between  God  and  the  soul,  (d.)  And  an  express  divine  institu- 
tion. The  usual  patristic  definition  was,  "  a  sacrament  is  a  sen- 
sible sign  of  an  invisible  grace."  But  this  is  too  indefinite,  and 
leaves  out  the  federal  feature.  All  ceremonies  are  not  sacra- 
ments because  they  are  of  divine  appointment ;  for  they  may 
not  have  this  material  element  as  symbol  of  a  spiritual  grace ; 
nor  are  all  symbols  of  divine  appointment  therefore  sacraments  ; 
because  they  may  not  be  seals  of  a  covenant. 

One  of  the  most  important  features  is  the  express  divine 
appointment.  Sacraments  are  acts  of  wor- 
nSt'EsstttFaf "^""^"^  ship.  All  worship  not  instituted  by  God  is 
will-worship,  and  therefore  offensive,  because 
He  is  infinite  and  inscrutable  to  finite  minds,  as  well  as  our  ab- 
solute Sovereign;  so  that  it  is  presumption  in  man  to  devise  ways 
to  please  Him  any  farther  than  the  appointment  of  His  word 
bears  us  out,  and  because  the  devices  of  depraved  and  short- 
sighted man  are  always  liable  to  be  depraved  and  depraving. 
These  reasons,  of  course,  apply  in  full  force  to  sacraments  of 
human  device.  But  there  is  an  additional  one.  A  sacrament  is 
God's  pledge  of  some  covenanted  grace  to  the  true  participant. 
Now,  by  the  same  reason  that  nobody  can  put  my  sign  and  seal 
to   my  bond  save   myself,  no   other  than  God   can  institute  a 


728  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sacrament.      It  is   the  most  aggravated  form   of  will-worship. 
The  remarks  of  Dick  and  Hill  concerning  the  etymology  and 

usage  of  the   word,  sa.craineiituin,  have  been 
Etymology  and    sufficient;  (as  meaning  first,  a  suitor's  money 

placed  in  pledge  ;  second,  a  soldier's  oath  of 
enlistment ;  third,  some  holy  secret,  the  usual  vulgate  transla- 
tion of  iJLoa-'/j()coy.)  It  has  been  plausibly  suggested,  that  the 
latter  is  the  sense  primarily  attached  to  it  by  the  Latin  Fathers, 
when  they  used  it  in  our  technical  sense  ;  as  liuaTfiptov  is  the 
word  usually  employed  therefor  by  the  Greeks.  This  is  reas- 
onable :  yet  the  other  idea  of  oath  of  enlistment  to  Christ  was, 
we  know,  early  attached  to  it.  For  in  the  earliest  literature  of 
the  martys,  e.  g.,  Tertullian,  and  thenceforward  generally,  we 
find  the  ideas  enlarged  on,  that  the  Christian  is  a  soldier  enlisted 
and  sworn,  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  die  for  Jesus. 

Much  of  the  remainder  of  this  Lecture  will  consist  of  an 

attempt  to  substantiate  the  parts  of  our  de- 
2.   Sacraments  are    finition  of  a  sacrament.     The   Socinians  (and 
Seals  as  well  as  bigns.  t  -r-»       •  1  1      1       r/     • 

as  Lutherans  and  rapists  charged,  the  Zwmg- 

lians),  being  outraged  by  the  unscriptural  and  absurd  doctrine 
of  Rome,  concerning  the  intrinsic  efficacy  of  sacraments,  ex 
operc  operato,  adopted  this  view,  that  a  sacrament  is  but  an  in- 
structive and  commemorative  symbol  of  certain  facts  and  truths, 
and  a  badge  of  profession.  This  we  hold  to  be  true  so  far  as 
it  goes,  but  to  be  insufficient.  They  are  also  pledges  and  seals 
on  God's  part  of  covenanted  gospel  blessings,  as  well  as  pledges 
of  service  and  fidelity  on  our  part  (which  is  implied  in  their 
being  badges  of  profession).  And  here  we  oppose  the  Papists 
also,  because  they  also  repudiate  the  sphragistic  nature  of  the 
sacraments,  in  making  them  actually  confer  and  work,  instead  of 
signing  and  sealing,  the  appropriate  graces. 

The  arguments  for  our  view  are  the  following :     It  is  ex- 
pressly said,  Rom.  iv  :  11,  that  circumcision, 
(a.) Because Circum-  f  ^j^    sacraments  of  the  Old  Testament, 

sion  was  a  beal.  ai       1  •  ^    c,         1        r     1 

was    to  Abraham  a  sign   and      seal   01    the 

righteousness  of  faith,  which  he  had  while  yet  uncircumcised." 
It  must  have  been  equally  a  seal  to  all  other  genuine  believers 
of  Israel ;  for  the  ground  of  its  application  to  them  was  no 
other  than  their  coming  under  the  very  covenant  then  instituted 
with  Abraham,  and  inheriting  the  same  promises.  But  baptism 
is  the  circumcision  of  the  New  Testament,  the  initial  sign  of 
the  same  covenant ;  and  baptized  believers  are  children  of  Abra- 
ham's promises  by  faith.  Matt,  xxviii  :  19;  Acts  ii  :  38,  39; 
Rom,  iv  :  11,  16,  &c.  It  seems  very  obvious  therefore,  that 
Baptism  is  as  much  a  seal  as  circumsion  was.  So  the  passover, 
at  its  first  institution,  was  a  pledge  (as  well  as  sign)  of  a  cove- 
nanted immunity.  See  Exod.  xii  ;  13,  23.  When  we  establish 
a  similar  identity  between  the  Passover  and  the  Supper,  the 
same  argument  will  appear,  that  the  latter  also  is  a  seal. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  729 

But  second.     The   pledge  contained  in  the  sacraments  is 
(b.)  The  Sacraments    pl^iiily  indicated  in  the  outward  or  ecclesias- 
Confer  Outward  Privi-    tical  privileges,   into  which  they  immediately 
^^g^-  induct  the  partaker.      He  vv^ho  received  the 

sign,  was  thereby  at  once  entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of  certain 
privileges,  the  signs  and  means  of  saving  graces.  How  can  the 
idea  of  pledging  be  avoided  here  ?  And  the  sacramental  union 
expressed  in  the  Bible  language  implies  the  same.  In  Gen. 
xvii  :  10,  13,  circumsion  is  called  the  covenant.  In  Jno.  iii  :  5  ; 
Tit.  iii  :  5  ;  baptism  is  called  regeneration;  and  in  Acts  xxii  :  16, 
remission  of  sins.  In  Exod.  xii,  et  passivi,  the  lamb  is  called 
the  passover.  In  i  Cor.  xi  :  24,  25,  the  bread  and  wine  are  called 
the  body  and  blood.  Now,  this  intimate  union,  implied  in  such 
language,  must  be  either  opjis  operatiim  (which  we  shall  disprove), 
or  a  sealing  pledge.  For  illustration,  by  what  usage  of  human 
language  could  that  symbolical  act  in  a  feudal  investiture,  hand- 
ing to  the  tenant  a  green  sod  cut  from  the  manor  conveyed,  be 
called  "  Livery  of  seizin ;"  unless  it  was  understood  to  represent 
the  conveying  and  guaranteeing  of  possession  in  the  land  ? 
And  third.  When  we  remember  that  a  sacrament  symbolizes 
not  any  kind  of  fact  or  truth,  but  one  peculiar 
A  Federal  Sip  IS  ne-        ^^     j^ ;  a  covenant;  we  see  that  in  making: 

cessanly  a  Seal.  '  11111  1 

a  sacrament  a  symbol  and  badge,  we  make  it 
a  seal  and  pledge.  For  the  latter  idea  is  necessarily  involved 
in  a  federal  symbol,  which  is  just  the  idea  of  the  sacrament. 
When  I  shake  hands  as  an  indication  only  of  general  good  will, 
the  act  may  be  merely  symbolical ;  but  when  I  give  my  hand 
on  a  bargain,  the  symbol  inevitably  conveys  a  sealing  mean- 
ing. 

Both  the  Popish  and  Protestant  Scholastics  have  defined 
3.  Matter  of  the  Sa-  ^^^  sacraments  as  consisting  in  matter,  and 
cramentwhat?  Natu-  form.  This  proceeds  upon  the  Peripatetic 
ral  Foundation  for  it.  analysis,  adopted  by  the  scholastic  divines. 
They  supposed  that  the  most  accurate  definition  of  every  ob- 
ject was  made  by  stating,  first  the  matter,  5/"^,  constitutive  of  the 
object,  and  then  the  form,  (^yJ^JM  which,  when  superinduced,  dis- 
criminated that  object  from  every  other  that  was  constituted  of 
the  same  uArj.  This  answers  quite  correctly,  for  a  concrete  ob- 
ject. Thus  :  a  sword  may  be  defined.  It  matter  is  steel.  But 
any  steel  is  not  a  sword  ;  there  may  be  steel  in  a  plough-share, 
or  in  an  ingot,  or  in  a  bar.  Add  the  special  shape  and  fashion 
of  the  weapon,  the  form ;  and  we  have  the  idea  of  a  sword. 
The  student  will  see,  that  the  attempt  to  extend  this  mode  of 
definition  to  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  concepts  is  very  ques- 
tionable :  such,  however,  is  the  point  of  view,  on  which  this  de- 
finition turns.  But  here  the  student  must  note  that,  by  form  is 
not  meant  the  shape  of  a  material  thing,  or  the  formulary,  or 
mode  of  observance  outward ;  but  (the  idea  of  a  sacrament  be- 
ing complex)  that  trait  which,  when  superinduced  on  the  trans- 


73^  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

action,  distinguishes  it  as  a  sacrament.  Both  agree  that  the 
matter  of  the  sacrament  consists  of  a  sensible  symbol,  and  of  a 
federal  truth  of  religion  symbolized.  The  trait  of  human  nature 
to  which  the  institution  of  sacraments  is  accommodated 
is  evidently  this  :  that  man  being  a  sensuous  being,  suggestions 
prompted  by  a  sensible  object,  are  much  more  vivid  and  perma- 
nent than  those  prompted  by  mental  conceptions  merely,  whether 
the  associated  suggestion  be  of  thought,  or  emotion.  Society 
offers  many  illustrations  of  this  mental  law,  and  of  useful  social 
formalities  founded  on  it.  What  else  is  the  meaning  and  use  of 
friends,  shaking  hands?  Of  civic  ceremonials?  Of  the  sym- 
boHcal  acts  in  forming  matrimonial  vows  ?  Of  commemorative 
monuments,  painting  and  statues  ?  On  this  principle  rest  also 
the  attractiveness  of  pilgrimages,  the  ties  of  all  local  associa- 
tions, and  the  sacredness  attached  to  the  graves  of  the  dust  of 
those  we  lov.". 

Hence,  it  is  obvious  that  there  will  be  in  every  sacrament. 
Hence,  a  Sacrament    some  material  element,  palpable  to  the  senses, 
has,  first,  a  Significant    and  especially  to  our  eye-sight.  This  element 
Matenal  Part.  should  also  be  not  merely  an  arbitrary,  but  a 

natural  sign  of  the  grace  signified ;  that  is,  it  should  have  some 
natural  analogy  to  suggest  the  related  grace.  By  arbitrary 
agreement,  soldiers  have  bargained  that  a  certain  blast  of  the 
trumpet  shall  signify  advance,  and  algebraists,  that  a  certain 
mark  (+)  shall  represent  addition.  There  is  no  previous  anal- 
ogy. But  in  circumcision,  the  removal  of  the  prepiithim  aptly 
and  naturally  represents  putting  away  carnality  ;  and  results  in 
a  hidden,  yet  indelible  mark,  graphically  signifying  the  inward 
renewal  of  the  heart.  In  baptism,  water,  which  is  the  detergent 
element  in  nature,  as  aptly  signifies  cleansing  of  guilt  and  carnal- 
ity. In  the  passover,  the  sprinkled  blood  represented  the  atone- 
ment :  and  the  eating  of  the  sacrificed  body  of  the  lamb,  faith's 
receptive  act,  in  embracing  Jesus  Christ  for  the  life  of  the  soul. 
In  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  same  symbols  almost,  are  retained ; 
i.  e.,  eating  something  that  nourishes ;  but  not  in  this  case  animal 
food,  because  the  typical  nature  of  the  passover,  contained  in 
"  the  life  which  maketh  atonement  for  our  sin,"  had  already  ter- 
minated on  Christ  the  antitype.  But  it  must  be  added,  that  a 
mere  natural  analogy  does  not  constitute  a  sacrament.  The 
analogy  must  be  selected,  and  consecrated  by  the  express  in- 
stitution of  God. 

The  Protestant  scholastics  very  properly  (if  the  extremely 
^  artificial  analysis  of  the  Peripatetics  is  to  be 
retained  at  all)  declared  that  the  form  which 
constitutes  the  element  and  theological  truth  a  sacrament,  is  the 
instituted  signification.  The  Papists  make  the  form  of  sacrament 
to  consist  in  the  words  of  institution.  Those  words  are  indeed, 
in  each  case,  expressive  of  the  appointed  signification ;  whence 
it  may  be  supposed,  that  the  difference  of  definition  is  unimpor- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  731 

tant.  But  we  shall  see  that  the  Papists  are  thereby  smoothing 
the  way  for  their  idea  of  the  sacramental  union,  involving  an 
efficiency  by  opus  operatum,  and  the  power  of  the  canonical 
priest  to  constitute  the  ceremonial  a  sacrament  or  not,  at  his 
will. 

Our  Confession  declares,  c.  27,  §  2,  that  "  there  is,  in  every 

sacrament,  a  spiritual  relation,  or  sacramental 

tt"^-    ^ax^7u''.%™^"*^'    union,  between  the  sign  and  the  thing  signi- 

UmonWhat?  ,-11  •,  ^  ^1     ^  ^.u 

fied  ;  whence  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  names 

and  effects  of  the  one  are  attributed  to  the  other."  Instances  of 
this  sacramental  language  have  been  already  given,  (p.  302.) 
Others  may  be  found,  where  the  grace  is  named  by  the  sign, 
in  Matt,  xxvi :  27,  28;  i  Pet.  iii;2i;  Rom.  vi :  4;  Col.  ii :  11, 
12,  &c.  This  sacramental  union  is  defined  by  the  Confession 
as  "  spiritual  relation,"  and  by  Turrettin,  as  a  "  relative  and 
moral  union."  The  latter  repudiates  the  proposition,  that  it  is 
a  "spiritual  union;" but  he  repudiates  it  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
is  asserted  by  Papists,  who  mean  by  it  a  literal  connection  of 
the  spiritual  benefit  with  the  material  element,  such  that  it  is 
conferred  wherever  the  element  is  ex  opere  operate.  Turrettin's 
"moral  relation  "means  the  same  with  our  Confession's  "  spirit- 
ual relation."  Both,  of  course,  imply  that  this  relation  only  is 
real  in  those  cases  in  which  the  recipient  partakes  with  proper 
state  of  heart.  In  such  cases  (only),  the  elements  are  the 
means  and  channels  of  gracious  benefits,  not  in  virtue  of  a  phys- 
ical union  of  the  grace  to  the  elements,  but  of  their  adaptation 
and  God's  appointment  and  purpose,  and  the  Holy  Ghost's 
influence. 

Should  any  one  assert  a  different  union  from  that  of  the 
Confession,  he  would  be  refuted  by  common 
Pl7skd^"^°"   "°*    sense,  which  pronounces  the  absurdity  of  the 
^^^^^^ '  whole  notion   of  the  conveyance  of  spiritual 

benefits  by  a  physical  power  through  a  physical  union.  It  is 
nothing  better  than  an  instance  of  a  religious  jugglery.  He  is 
opposed  by  the  Old  Testament,  which  declares  its  sacraments 
to  be  only  signs  and  seals  of  grace  embraced  through  faith. 
He  is  contradicted  by  the  general  tenour  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  always  conditions  our  participation  of  saving  bless- 
ings on  our  state  of  heart.  And  he  is  inconsistent  with  himself; 
for  if  the  tie  connecting  the  grace  with  the  element  were  a 
physical  tie,  the  grace  ought  to  go  wherever  the  element  goes. 
It  is  so  with  the  tie  between  substance  and  attributes,  in  every 
other  case.  If  it  is  the  nature  of  fire  to  burn,  then  fire  surely 
burns  him  whom  it  touches,  whether  it  be  conveyed  to  him 
by  friend  or  foe,  by  design  or  chance,  in  anger  or  in  friendship. 
Then,  the  intention  of  the  priest,  and  the  state  of  mortal  sin  in 
the  recipient  ought  to  make  no  difference  whatever  as  to  the 
gracious  efficacy.  In  placing  these  limitations,  the  Papist  has 
really  given  up  his  position  ;  he  has  virtually  admitted  that  the 


732  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sacramental  union  is  only  a  relation  of  instituted  moral  influ- 
ence. But  if  it  is  such,  then  its  efficacy  must  be  tested  just  like 
other  moral  influence  exerted  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Are  any  of 
them  exerted,  can  they  be  exerted,  any  otherwise  than  through 
the  intelligent  embracing  and  acting  upon  the  truth  by  the 
soul  of  the  subject?  The  same  topic  will  be  more  fully  dis- 
cussed when  we  consider  the  claim  of  opus  opcraium. 

All  Protestants  are  agreed  that  among  the  religious    rites 

,     T,  .    ^       TVT        instituted    by    God  for  the  New    Testament 
5.     But     two    New     ^1  ,  ,  ,  1  .    1  1 

Testament  Sacraments.  Churches,  there  are  but  two,  which  meet  the 
Rome  has  Seven.  definition  of  a  sacrament :  Baptism  and  the 

Lord's  supper.  As  they  obviously  present  all  the  requisites,  and 
as  there  is  no  dispute  concerning  their  claim,  we  shall  not  argue 
it,  but  proceed  to  consider  the  pretensions  of  the  five  other 
so-called  sacraments  of  the  Romish  Church  :  confirmation,  pen- 
ance, orders,  matrimony,  and  extreme  unction.  To  prove  that 
the  sacraments  are  seven,  the  Roman  Catechism  seems  to  rely 
chiefly  on  this  argument :  As  there  are  seven  things  in  physical 
life  which  are  essential  to  the  propagation  and  well-being  of  man 
and  of  society,  that  men  be  born,  grow,  be  nourished,  be  healed 
when  sick,  be  strengthened  when  weak,  have  rulers  to  govern 
them,  and  rear  children  lawfully  ;  so  in  the  analagous  life  of 
the  Spirit,  there  are  seven  essential  wants,  to  each  of  which  a 
sacrament  answers.  In  baptism  the  soul  is  born  unto  Christ, 
by  confirmation  we  grow,  in  the  eucharist  we  are  fed  with 
heavenly  nourishment,  in  penance  the  soul  is  medicined  for  the 
returns  of  the  diseases  of  sin,  in  extreme  unction  it  is  strength- 
ened for  its  contest  with  the  last  enemy,  in  orders  the  spiritual 
magistracy  is  instituted,  and  in  matrimony  the  production  of 
legitimate  offspring  is  secured.  The  answer  to  all  this  trifling 
is  obvious,  that  by  the  same  argument  it  would  be  as  easy  to 
make  a  dozen  sacraments  as  seven  :  one  to  answer  to  man's 
home  and  shelter,  one  to  his  raiment  to  cover  him,  one  to  his 
fire  to  warm  him,  &c.,  &c.,  for  these  also  are  necessaries.  But 
to  proceed  to  details. 

I.     Confirmation  is  not  a  sacrament  of  the  New  Testament, 

because  it  utterly  lacks  the  divine  institu- 
SaCT°ment!"^*'°"  "°    ^^o"'     The  imposition  of  hands  practiced    in 

Acts  viii :  17,  and  xix:6,  and  mentioned  in 
Heb.  vi:2,  was  a  rite  intended  to  confer  the  miraculous 
charisms  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  peculiar  to  the  apos- 
tolic age,  and  purely  temporary.  The  evidences  of  this  fact 
are  presented  in  the  exposition  of  Acts.*  Let  Rome  or  Can- 
terbury so  confer  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  their  imposition  of  hands, 
that  they  shall  make  men  prophesy  and  speak  with  tongues  (Acts 
xix :  6),  and  we  will  believe.  Again  :  It  is  the  sheerest  blunder 
to  pretend  to  find  this  rite  of  confirmation  in  any  of  those  pass- 


*  See  a  crucial  investigation  of  this  point  in  my  essay,   "Prelacy 
■Southern  Presbyterian  Review.     Januaiy  1876. 


a  Blunder." — 


or  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  733 

ages  where  apostles  are  said  to  "confirm"  (Acts  xiv  :  22, 
azr^(ii^o)v)  the  churches,  or  the  souls  of  the  brethren.  The  con- 
text, dispassionately  viewed,  will  show  that  this  was  merely  the 
instructions  and  encouragements  addressed  to  them  by  the 
apostles'  prayers  and  preachings.  For  these  reasons,  and 
because  the  Scriptures  direct  us  to  expect  in  baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper  all  the  increments  of  grace  which  Christians 
receive  through  any  sacramental  channel,  we  do  not  hold  mod- 
ern confirmation  to  be  a  scriptural  rite  at  all.  But  if  it  were,  it 
could  not  be  a  sacrament,  for  tw^o  fatal  reasons :  that  it  has  no 
material  element  (for  the  oil  or  chrism  is  of  purely  human  addi- 
tion, without  one  syllable  of  scriptural  authority) ;  and  it  has  no 
promise  of  grace  attached  to  it  by  any  divine  institution.  It 
seals  no  pledge  God  has  given. 

2.  Papists   profess   to  find  the  matter  of  the  sacrament  of 

penance    in    the    penitent's    three   exercises. 

Penance  No  Sacra-        r  ,    •.■  r       •  j        ^-   r     .  ■  1 

j^gnt.  °*  contrition,  confession  and  satisiaction  ;  and 

its  form  in  the  priest's  absolution.  Now,  in 
the  case  of  sins  which  scandalize  the  Church  openly,  a  confes- 
sion to  man  is  required  by  the  New  Testament,  and  a  profes- 
sion of  contrition.  And  when  such  profession  is  credible,  it  is 
proper  for  the  minister  to  pronounce  the  acquittal  of  the  offend- 
ing brother  from  Church  censure.  And  this  is  the  only  case  in 
which  anything  like  confession  and  absolution  is  enjoined  as 
an  ecclesiastical  rite  in  the  New  Testament.  The  only  plausi- 
ble case  cited  .by  Rome,  that  of  Jas.  v  :  16,  is  non-ecclesiasti- 
cal, because  it  is  mutual  confession,  and  its  object  is  mutual 
prayers  for  each  other's  forgiveness.  That  would  be  a  queer 
sacrament  in  which  recipient  should  turn  the  tables  on  admin- 
istrator, giving  him  the  elements  and  conferring  the  grace ! 
Having  limited  scriptural  confession  and  absolution  to  the 
single  case  defined  above,  we  find  overwhelming  reasons  why, 
in  that  case,  they  cannot  compose  a  sacrament.  There  is  no 
element  to  symbolize  the  grace  promised  ;  for  by  what  title  can 
a  set  of  feelings  and  acts  in  the  penitent  be  called  a  material 
element  ?  If  this  be  waived,  there  is  no  analogy  between  this 
pretended  element,  and  a  symbolized  grace ;  for  contrition  and 
confession  do  not  represent,  they  are  themselves  graces,  if  gen- 
uine. There  is  no  divine  warrant,  in  words  of  institution, 
authorizing  the  minister  to  announce  a  divine  grace ;  for  all  he 
is  authorized  to  announce  is  acquittal  from  Church  discipline. 
"  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ?"  And  last :  It  is  the 
nature  of  a  sacrament  to  be  partaken  by  all  alike  who  are  within 
the  covenant.  But  scriptural  penance  is  appropriate  only  to  the 
exceptional  cases  of  those  communicants  who  have  scandalized 
their  profession.  The  additions  which  the  Papists  have  made, 
of  auricular  confession  and  satisfaction,  greatly  aggravate  the 
objections. 

3.  The  formulary  for    extreme  unction  may  be  found  de- 


734  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

scribed  in  Turrettin  and  others.     The  only- 
Extreme     Unction       i  r  c      •    ^  -i.   j    •       -i.  ^ 
No  Sacrament.              places    ol  bcnpture   Cited  m   its  support  are 

Mark  vi :  13,  and  Jas.  v  :  14.  These  cases  so 
obviously  fail  to  bear  out  the  Popish  sacrament  that  many  of 
their  own  writers  confess  it.  The  .objects  were  different;  the 
apostles  annointed  to  heal  the  bodies ;  the  priests  do  it  to  pre- 
pare them  for  dying.  The  apostles  anointed  all  sick  persons 
who  called  on  them,  baptized,  unbaptized,  those  in  mortal  sin ; 
sacraments  are  properly  only  for  Church  members.  The  effect 
in  the  apostles'  case  was  miraculous  :  can  Rome  claim  this  ? 
And  there  can  be  no  sacrament,  because  the  priest  has  no 
divine  institution  and  promise  on  which  to  proceed. 

4.  Orders  cannot  be  a  sacrament,  although  when  stripped 

^                              of  its  superstitious  additions,  a  New  Testa- 
Orders    No     Sacra-    i.     -i.  r?       -i.  1  1  ...       t^i       • 

j^gjjt.  ment  rite,     rorithas  no  element,      i  he  im- 

position of  hands  with  prayer  (chrism,  &c.,  is 
all  extra-scriptural)  is  but  an  action,  not  an  element.  It  has  no 
saving  grace  connected  with  it,  by  any  promise  or  word  of  insti- 
tution. As  has  been  shown  by  my  colleague,  in  his  course, 
ordination  confers  no  grace,  but  only  recognizes  its  possession. 
According  to  Rome,  the  action  which  she  preposterously  ele- 
vates into  a  matter,  is  not  uniform  ;  but  as  there  are  seven 
orders  of  clergy,  there  are  several  different  ceremonials  enjoined 
in  the  different  cases.  And  last :  only  one  Christian  out  of  a 
number  is  ordained  to  any  office :  whereas  a  sacrament  is  for 
all  equally,  who  are  in  the  covenant. 

5.  For  the  sacramental  character  of  matrimony,  the  only 
showing  of  scriptural  defence  is  the  vulgate  translation  of  Eph. 
v  :  32  :  "Hoc  est  sacramentwn  magnum^  Surely  a  mistransla- 
tion of  a  bad  version  is  a  bad  foundation  on  which  to  build  a 
Bible-claim  !  And  then,  as  has  been  well  remarked,  the  great 
imarf^navj  on  which  Paul  remarks,  is  not  the  marriage  relation  at 
all,  but  the  mystical  union  of  Christ  to  His  people.  In  matri- 
mony there  is  no  sacramental  element  at  all,  no  divine  warrant 
for  sacramental  institution,  no  grace  of  redemption  signed  and 
sealed  to  the  recipients.  And  to  crown  the  absurdity,  the  rite 
is  not  limited  to  God's  people,  but  is  equally  valid  among 
Pagans  !  Indeed,  marriage  is  a  civil  contract,  and  not  an  eccles- 
iastical one.  Yet  Rome  has  found  it  to  her  interest  to  lay  her 
hand  on  the  rite,  and  thus  to  elevate  the  question  of  divorce 
into  an  ecclesiastical  one,  and  a  causa  major. 

As  to  the  number  of  sacraments  under  the  Old  Testament 

6.  Sacraments  of  Old    dispensation      Calvinistic     divines     arc    not 

Testament  Two.    Sac-    agreed      Some  seem  inclined  to  regard  any 

and  Wh"'^'"'''''"''^"''''  °^  every  symbolical  rite  there  found  as  a 
sacrament.  Others,  far  more  correctly,  as  I 
conceive,  limit  them  to  two  :  circumcision  and  the  passover. 
The  claim  of  these  two  to  be  sacraments  need  hardl}^  be  much 
argued,    inasmuch    as   it    is   not   disputed.     They   are  symbols 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  735 

instituted  by  God ;  they  have  each  their  elements,  bearing  a 
significant  relation  to  the  grace  represented  :  the  thing  repre- 
sented was  in  each  case  federal,  so  that  they  not  only  signified, 
but  sealed  or  pledged  the  benefits  of  a  covenant. 

But  the  various  typical  sacrifices  of  the  Hebrews  cannot 
be  properly  regarded  as  sacraments,  for  the  very  reason  that 
they  were  mere  types.  (The  passover  also  was  a  type,  in  that 
it  was  a  sacrifice  proper,  but  it  was  also  more  than  a  type,  a 
commemorative  and  sealing  ordinance).  For  a  type  points  for- 
ward to  an  antitype  to  come.  A  sacrament  points  back  to  a 
covenant  already  concluded.  The  type  does  not  actually  con- 
fer the  good  symbolized,  but  holds  the  soul  in  suspense,  waiting 
for  it.  The  sacrament  seals  a  present  possession  to  the  worthy 
receiver.  This  was  as  true  of  the  two  Old  Testament  sacra- 
ments as  of  the  New.  See  Rom.  iv  :  ii  ;  Exod.  xii  :  13.  To 
the  obedient  and  observant  Hebrew,  the  passover  was,  on  the 
night  of  its  institution,  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  remission  of 
deathj  bodily  and  spiritual  death,  the  proper  penalty  of  sin, 
visited  that  night  on  a  part  of  the  Egyptians  ;  and  doubtless,  in 
all  subsequent  ages,  the  truly  believing  Hebrew  found  it  the 
consoling  pledge  of  a  present  and  actual  (not  typical)  remission 
and  spiritual  life,  through  the  merit  of  the  "  Lamb  of  God." 
Again,  a  sacrament  is  a  holy  ordinance,  to  be  observed  alike  by 
all  who  are  within  the  covenant.  But  many  of  the  sacrifices 
were  adapted  only  to  exceptional  cases  :  as  the  Nazarites,  the 
trespass  offering,  the  sacrifice  for  the  purification  of  women,  &c. 
The  question  whether  the  sacraments  of  the  Old  and  New 
Sacraments  of  Both  Testaments  are  the  same  substantially  in 
Testaments  Same  in  their  signification  and  efficacy  will  be  found 
Signification.  •  ^^  ^-^^  sequel  one  of  prime  importance.     The 

grounds  on  which  we  assert  their  substantial  identity  are  these, 
(a.)  Presumptively :  The  covenant  of  grace  is  the  same 
under  the  two  testaments,  offering  the  same  blessing,  redemp- 
tion ;  through  the  same  agencies,  justification  and  sanctifica- 
tion  through  the  work  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence, 
it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  sacraments,  especially  when  sealing 
the  same  covenant  graces,  should  operate  in  substantially  the 
same  way.  (b.)  The  identity  of  the  covenant,  and  of  the 
means  of  sealing  it,  is  strongly  implied  by  Paul,  i  Cor.  x :  I-4, 
when  he  says  there  was  a  sense  in  which  the  Hebrew  Church 
possessed  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  Turrettin  very 
strangely  argues  from  this,  and  deals  with  objections,  as  though 
he  understood  the  Apostle  to  teach  that  the  Hebrews  of  the 
Exodus  had  literally  and  formally  a  real  sacrament  of  baptism, 
and  the  supper,  in  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  eating 
and  drinking  of  the  Manna  and  water  of  Massah.  This  seems 
to  me  to  obscure  the  argument;  and  it  would  certainly  have 
this  effect :  that  we  must  teach  thet  Israel  had  four  sacraments 
instead  of  two.     The  scope  of  the  Apostle  is,  to  show  that  par- 


736  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

ticipation  in  sealing  ordinances  and  ecclesiastical  privileges 
does  not  ensure  salvation.  For  Israel  all  shared  these  wond- 
rous sealings  to  God,  yet  many  of  them  perished.  And  to 
strengthen  the  analogy  he  compares  them  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment sacraments.  Now,  if  Israel's  consecration  to  God  in  this 
Exodus  was  virtually  a  baptizing  and  a  Eucharist,  we  infer  that 
the  spirit  of  the  Israelitish  ordinances  was  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  New  Testament.  The  scope  of  the  Apos- 
tle necessitates  this  view.  His  design  was,  to  stimulate  to  watch- 
fulness, by  showing  that  sacraments  alone  do  not  guarantee  our 
salvation.  This  premise  he  proves,  from  the  case  of  the  Israelites 
who,  though  enjoying  their  sacraments,  perished  by  unbelief 
If  the  New  Testament  sacraments  differed  from  the  Old  in  pos- 
sessing opus  operatinn  power,  as  Rome  claims  they  do,  then 
the  logic  of  the  Apostle  would  be  shameful  sophism,  (c.)  The 
supper  is  called  by  the  name  of  the  passover.  i  Cor.  v :  7,  8, 
And  the  baptism  is  declared  to  be.  Col.  ii :  11,  12,  the  New 
Testament  circumcision,  (d.)  The  supper  came  in  the 'room 
of  the  passover,  as  is  manifest  from  the  circumstances  of  its 
institution,  and  the  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision ; 
compare  Gen.  xvii :  11,  with  Matt,  xxviii :  19.  See  Acts  ii: 
38,  39.  And,  last,  circumcision  and  baptism  signify  and  seal  the 
same  graces.  This  will  be  manifest  from  a  comparison  of  Gen. 
xvii:  13,  14,  with  Acts  ii :  41;  Deut.  x:  16,  or  xxx  :  6,  with 
Jno.  iii :  5,  or  with  Titus  iii :  5,  and  Eph.  v;  26;  Acts  vii :  8. 
with  Rom.  vi :  3,  4  ;  Rom.  iv:  11,  with  Acts  ii :  38,  and  xxii : 
16.  We  here  learn  that  each  sacrament  signified  entrance  into 
the  visible  Church,  remission  of  sin,  regeneration,  and  the 
engagement  to  be  the  Lord's.  So  the  passover  and  the  supper 
signify  substantially  the  same.  In  our  passover,  the  Lamb  of 
God  is  represented  as  slain,  the  blood  as  sprinkled,  our  souls 
feed  upon  Him  by  faith,  and  the  consequence  is  that  God's 
wrath  passeth  over  us,  and  our  souls  live. 


LECTURE  LXII. 

THE  SACRAMENTS.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

7.  Is  tlie  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  dependent  on  the  officiator's  intention  ? 
Turrettin,    Loc.   xix,  Qu.  7.     Dick,   Lect.  86,   87.     Conf.    of  Faith,   ch.    27. 
Ridgley,    Qu  161.     Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  7,  Cannon   11. 

8.  Is  that  efficiency  produced  ex  opere  operato  ;  qr  does  it  depend  on  the  recipi- 
ent's exercise  of  the  proper  frames,  inwrouglit  by  the  Holy  Ghost  through  the  Word 
of  God  ? 

See  on  Qu.  8,  Cunningham's  Hist.  Theol.  ch.  22,  \  i,  2.  Turrettm,  Qu.  8. 
Calv..  Inst.  bk.  iv,  ch.  14,  Dick,  Lect.  86.  Ridgley,  Qu.  161.  Rom.  Cat. 
pt.  ii,  Qu.  18.    Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  7,  Canon,  410  8  inclusive. 

9.  Is  participation  in  the  Sacraments  necessary  to  salvation  ? 
Turrettin,  Ques.  2  and  13.     Council  of  Trent,  as  above. 

10.  By  whom  should  the  Sacraments  be  adminstered  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  14.  Rice  and  Campbell,  Debate,  Prop.  iv.  Calv.  Inst.  bk.  iv, 
ch.  15,  \  20-end. 

11.  Do  the  rites  of  Baptism,  Confirmation,  and  orders  confer  an  indelible  spiritual 
character  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  10.  Dick,  as  above.  Dr.  Geo.  Campbell,  Lect.  xi,  on  Eccles, 
Hist.  (p.  183,  &c.)  Rom.  Cat.  pt.  ii,  Qu,  19.  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  vii. 
Canon  9. 

'  I  *HE  Council  of  Trent  asserts  (Ses.  7  canon  11),  that  the 
intention  of  doing  at  least  what  the  Church  proposes  to  do, 
is  necessary  in  the  administrator,  to  make 
trine  o?I™tentiSi.°  '^ '  ^^^^  sacraments  valid.  Some  popish  divines 
are  so  accommodating  as  to  teach,  that  if  this 
intention  is  habitual  or  virtual,  though  not  present,  because  of 
inattention,  in  the  mind  of  the  administrator  at  the  moment  of 
pronouncing  the  words  of  institution,  it  is  still  valid  ;  and  some 
even  say,  that  though  the  officiating  person  have  heretical 
notions  of  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament,  e.  g.,  the  Presby- 
terian notion,  and  honestly  intends  a  Sacrament,  as  he  under- 
stands it,  it  is  valid.  Now,  there  is  obviously  a  sense,  in  which 
the  validity  of  sacramental  acts,  depends  on  the  intention  of  the 
parties.  If,  for  instance,  a  frivolous  or  profane  clergyman 
should,  in  a  moment  of  levity,  use  the  proper  elements,  and  pro- 
nounce the  proper  words  of  institution,  for  purposes  of  mockery 
or  sinful  sport,  it  would  certainly  not  be  a  sacrament.  But  this 
is  a  lack  of  intention,  of  a  far  different  kind  from  the  popish. 
There  would  be  neither  the  proper  place,  time,  nor  circum- 
stances of  a  divine  rite.  The  profanity  of  purpose  would  be 
manifest  and  overt :  and  all  parties  would  be  guilty  of  it.  The 
participation  on  both  sides,  would  be  a  high  act  of  profanity. 
But  where  the  proper  places,  times  and  attendant  circumstances 
exist,  so  far  as  the  honest  worshipper  can  judge ;  and  all  the 
divine  institution  essential  to  the  validity  of  the  right  is  regu- 
larly performed  with  an  appearance  of  religious  sincerity  and 
solemnity,  there  we  deny  that  the  sincere  participant  can  be 
*47  737 


.  73^  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

deprived  of  the  sacramental  benefit,  by  the  clergyman's   secret 

la-'k  of  intention.     And  this  :  because 

(a.)     It  is  the    opinion  of  all  the  Protestant  divines,  even 

^  ,  including  Calvin   (Inst.  Bk.  iv:    ch.  14),  that 

Refutation.  .1  •  re    ^  r     .1  '\ 

the  gracious  erncacy  01  the  sacraments  is 
generally  like  that  of  the  word.  The  sacraments  are  but  an 
acted  word,  and  a  promise  in  symbol.  They  effect  their  grac- 
ious result  through  the  Holy  Ghost  cultivating  intelligent  faith, 
etc.  Now,  the  efficacy  of  the  word  is  not  dependent  on  the 
motives  of  him  who  conveys  it.  God  sometimes  saves  a  soul 
by  a  message  delivered  through  a  wicked  man.  Why  may  not 
it  be  thus  with  a  sacrament  ? 

(b.)  If  the  clergyman  lack  the  right  intention,  that  is 
simply  his  personal  sin.  It  is  preposterous  to  represent  God 
as  suspending  the  fate  of  a  soul,  or  its  edification,  absolutely 
upon  the  good  conduct  of  another  fellow-sinner,  whose  secret 
fault  that  soul  can  neither  prevent,  nor  even  detect  till  too  late. 
This  is  not  Scripture.  Prov.  ix  :  12  ;  Rom.  xiv :  4.  This  objection 
to  Rome's  doctrine  is  peculiarly  forcible  against  her,  because 
she  represents  the  valid  enjoyment  of  sacraments,  as  essential 
to  salvation  :  and  because  she  herself  teaches  that  the  validity 
of  the  sacraments  is  not  dependent  on  the  personal  character  of 
the  clergyman,  not  even  though  he  be  in  mortal  sin.  Why 
should  this  one  sin,  which  is  precisely  a  personal  sin  of  the  offici- 
ator,  no  more,  no  less,  be  an  exception  ? 

(c.)  The  possible  consequences  of  the  doctrine,  as  pointed 
out  by  Turrettin,  Dick,  etc.,  are  such  as  amount  to  a  rediectio 
ad  absnrdum.  If  it  were  true,  it  would  bring  in  question  the 
validity  of  any  sacrament,  of  every  priest's  baptism  and  ordina- 
tion, the  validity  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  at  every  link,  and 
of  every  mass  :  so  that  the  worshipper  would  never  know,  while 
worshipping  the  wafer,  whether  he  were  guilty  of  idolatry  or 
not,  even  on  Popish  principles.  According  to  the  Canon  Law, 
all  orders  conferred  on  unbaptized  persons  are  null.  Hence,  if 
there  is  any  uncertainty  that  the  priest  baptizing  the  Pope  had 
the  intention,  there  is  the  same  uncertainty  whether  every  grade 
of  ordination  he  received,  from  the  deaconship  up  to  the  papal, 
is  not  void  ;  and  every  clerical  act  he  ever  performed  therefore 
invalid.  Papists  endeavour  to  evade  this  terrible  consequence 
by  saying  that  we  have  the  moral  evidence  of  human  testimony, 
that  the  priests  giving  us  the  sacraments  had  the  intention  ;  and 
this  is  all  the  Protestant  can  have  of  his  own  baptism  in  infancy, 
because  he  was  too  young  to  know;  and  had  to  take  the  fact 
on  the  assertion  of  his  parents  or  others.  I  repl)^ :  there  are  two 
vital  differences  :  The  Protestant  does  not  believe  water  bap- 
tism essential  to  his  redemption;  an  unconscious  mistake  in 
the  fact  would  not  be  fatal.  Water  baptism  is  an  overt  act, 
cognizable  by  the  senses,  and  a  proper  subject  of  authentic  and 
complete  testimony,  by  concurrent  witnesses;  but  intention  is 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  739 

a  secret  act  of  soul,  not  cognizable  by  any  other  than  the  pjiest, 
and  impossible  to  be  verified  by  any  concurrent  testimony. 

Last :     This    doctrine    is  totally  devoid  of  Bible  support. 
But  these   tremendous    difficulties  have    not 
Motive  for  the  Dogma,  prevented  Rome  from  asserting  the  doctrine. 
Her  purpose  is  to  hold  the  laity  in  the   most 
absolute  and  terrible  dependence  on  the  priesthood.     She  tells 
them  that  without  valid  sacraments  it  is  impossible  to  be  saved; 
and  that  even  where  they  have  the  canonical  form  of  a  sacra- 
ment,   they   may    utterly  fail    of  getting  the    sacrament  itself, 
through  the  priest's  secret  will ;  and  may  never  find  it    out  till 
they  wake  in  hell,  and  find  themselves  damned  for  the  want  of 
it.     What  power  could  be  more  portentous  ? 

In  the  scholastic  jargon  of  Rome,  means  of  grace  natu- 
rally divide  themselves  into  two  classes — 
Jyfx'S^rtS^eral:  ^hose  which  do  good  ex  opevc  operato,  2.nd 
those  which  only  do  good  ex  opere  operantis. 
The  former  do  good  by  the  simple  performance  of  the  proper 
ceremonial,  without  any  act  or  movement  of  soul  in  the  recipi- 
ents, accommodating  themselves  intelligently  to  the  grace  sig- 
nified. The  latter  only  do  good  when  the  recipient  exercises 
the  appropriate  acts  of  soul ;  and  the  good  done  is  depen- 
dent on  those  exercises,  as  well  as  on  the  outward  means. 
Of  the  latter  kind  of  means  is  preaching,  &c.;  but  Rome  holds 
that  the  sacraments  all  belong  to  the  former.  Her  meaning, 
then,  is  that  the  mere  administration  of  the  sacrament  does  the 
appointed  good  to  the  recipient,  provided  he  is  not  in  a  state 
of  mortal  sin,  whether  he  exercises  suitable  frames  or  not.  So 
Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  7,  Canon,  6-8.  But  Romish  Theologi- 
ans are  far  from  being  of  one  mind,  as  to  the  nature  of  this 
immediate  and  absolute  efficacy. 

Their  views  may  be  grouped  with  tolerable  accuracy  under 
p,  r-  two  classes.     One  class,  embracing  the  Jesuit 

and  more  Popish  Papists,  regard  the  opus 
operatum  efficacy  as  a  proper  and  literal  effect  of  the  sacra- 
mental element  and  words  of  institution,  by  their  own  immedi- 
ate causation.  They  do  not,  and  cannot  explain  the  nature  of 
this  causation,  unless  it  be  literally  physical ;  and  then  it  is 
absurd.  The  other  class,  including  Jansenists,  and  the  more 
spiritual,  regard  the  sacramental  efficacy  as  spiritual — i.  e.,  as 
the  almighty  redeeming  influence  of  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
purchased  for  sinners  by  Christ;  which  .spiritual  influence  they 
suppose  God  has  been  pleased  in  His  mercy  to  tie  by  a  con- 
stant purpose,  and  gracious  promise,  to  the  sacraments  of  the 
Church  canonically  administered,  by  a  tie  gracious  and  posi- 
tive, yet  absolute  and  unconditioned,  so  that  the  sacramental 
efficacy  goes  to  every  human  being  to  whom  the  elements  go 
with  the  proper  word  of  institution,  whether  the  recipient  exer- 
cise faith  or  not.     That  is,  God  has  been  pleased,  in  His  sove- 


740  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

reign,  mercy  to  the  Church,  to  make  her  sacraments  the  essen- 
tial and  unfaiHng  channels  of  His  spiritual  grace.  The  opinion 
of  the  Prelatic  Fathers  seems  to  have  been  intermediate — that 
no  one  got  saving  grace  except  through  the  sacramental  chan- 
nel, (excepting  the  doubtful  case  of  the  uncovenanted  mercies) 
but  that  in  order  to  get  grace  through  that  channel,  faith  and 
repentance  were  also  necessary.  (See  Augustine,  in  Calvin's 
7ibi  S7ipra).  And  such  is  probably  the  real  opinion  of  High 
Church  Episcopalians,  and  of  Campbellites,  as  to  the  grace  of 
remission. 

Now,  Protestants  believe  that  the  sacraments,  under  proper 
Protestant  View  circumstances,  are  not  a  hollow  shell,  devoid 

of  gracious  efficacy.  Nor  is  their  use  that 
of  a  mere  badge.  But  they  are  not  the  channels  or  vehicles  for 
acquiring  the  saving  grace  first ;  inasmuch  as  the  possession  of 
those  graces  is  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  proper  participation 
in  adults.  The  efficacy  of  the  sacrament,  therefore,  is  in  no 
case  more  than  to  strengthen  and  nourish  saving  graces.  And 
that  efficacy  they  carry  only  as  moral  means  of  spiritual  influ- 
ences ;  so  that  the  whole  benefit  depends  on  an  intelligent, 
believing  and  penitent  reception.  And  every  believer  has  the 
graces  of  redemption  in  such  degree  as  to  save  his  soul,  if  a 
a  true  believer,  whether  he  has  any  sacraments  or  not.  See 
Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  xxvii  :  §  3.  In  this  sense  we  deny  the 
opits  operat. 

(a)  Because  that  doctrine  is  contradicted  by  the  analogy 
Proved.    By  Analo-    of  the  mode  in  which  the  Word  operates. 

go  us  Operation  of  As  we  have  Stated,  Protestant  divines  admit 
no  generic  difference  between  the  mode  in 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  works  in  the  Word,  and  in  the  sacra- 
ments. The  form  of  a  sacrament  is  the  instituted  signifi- 
cance of  it.  But  that  significance  is  only  learned  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  word  of  institution  is  to  be  found,  as  well  as  its 
explanation,  in  the  same  place.  The  sacrament,  without  the 
intelligent  signification,  is  dumb :  it  is  naught.  Scripture  alone 
gives  it  its  significance.  Sacraments  are  but  the  word  symbol- 
ized ;  the  covenant  before  expressed  in  promissory  language, 
now  expressed  in  sphragistic  symbols.  But  now,  what  is  more 
clear,  than  that  the  word  depends  for  its  efficacy,  on  the  believ- 
ing and  active  reception  of  the  sinner's  soul  ?  See  2  Cor.  iii :  6  ; 
Heb.  iv  :  2,  et  passim.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  sacra- 
ments. 

(b)  The  sacraments  are  defined  in  the  Scriptures  as  signs  and 
1,        •■      seals,  Rom.  iv  :  ii  ;   Gen.  xvii  :  10.     Now  to 

Character.  "^^^'^  "^  signify  and  to  promise  a  thing  is  different  from 
doing  it.  Where  the  effect  is  present,  the 
sign  and  pledge  thereof  is  superseded.  When  the  money  is 
paid,  the  bond  that  engaged  for  its  payment  is  done  with.  To 
make  the  sacraments  effect  redemption  ex  opcre  operato,  there* 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  74I 

fore  destroys  their  sacramental  nature.  But  more :  They  are 
seals  of  a  covenant.  That  Covenant,  as  far  as  man  is  a  party 
(and  in  the  sacrament,  the  recipient  is  one  party),  was  sus- 
pended on  an  instrumental  condition,  a  penitent  and  obedient 
faith.  How  can  the  seal  have  a  more  immediate  and  absolute 
efficiency  than  the  covenant  of  which  it  is  a  seal.  That  coven- 
ant gives  it  all  its  force.  It  is  to  evade  this  fatal  argument,  that 
Bellarmine  labours,  with  his  and  our  enemies,  the  Socinians,  to 
prove  that  sacraments  are  not  seals. 

(c)  The    sacraments    cannot   confer    redeeming   grace   ex 

opere  opetato,  because,  in  every  adult,  proper 
posed     ^^^^      resup-    pa.rticipation    presupposes    saving    grace    in 

exercise.  See  Rom.  iv  :  ii,  last  clause; 
Acts  viii  ;  35,  36,  37 ;  ix  :  1 1  with  18 ;  x  :  34  with  47 ;  Mark  xvi : 
16;  I  Peter  iii  :  21 ;  Heb.  xi  :  6  ;  i  Cor.  xi  :  28,  29  ;  v  :  7,  8. 
Hence : 

(d)  Several   in   Scripture   were   saved   without   any   sacra- 
By  Instances  of  Sal-    mentg,  as  the  thief  on  the  cross.     Cornelius, 

vation  Without  Sacra-  we  have  seen,  and  Abraham,  were  already  in 
™^'^'^'  a  state  of  redemption,  before  their  participa- 

tion in  the  sacraments.  Now,  inasmuch  as  we  have  proved 
that  a  true  believer  once  in  a  state  of  grace  can  never  fall 
totally  away,  we  may  say  that  Abraham  and  Cornelius  were 
already  redeemed.  Jno.  iii  :  36 ;  v  :  24.  And  the  overwhelm- 
ing proof  that  the  sacraments  have  no  intrinsic  efficacy,  is  in 
this  glaring  fact,  that  multitudes  partake  them,  with  what  Rome 
calls  canonical  regularity,  who  never  exhibit  in  their  lives  or 
death,  one  mark  of  Christian  character.  Nor  will  it  avail  for 
Rome  to  say,  that  they  afterward  lost  the  grace  by  committing 
mortal  sin :  for  the  Scriptures  say  that  the  redeemed  soul  can- 
not fall  away  into  mortal  sin  :  and  multitudes  exhibit  their  total 
depravity,  not  after  a  subsequent  backsliding,  but  from  the  hour 
they  leave  the  sacramental  altar,  by  an  unbroken  life  of  sin. 

(e)  The  claim  of  uniform   and   absolute   efficiency,   in  its 
D  Ab  urdi  grosscr   form,    is    absolute    absurdity.     How 

can  physical,  material  elements,  with  a  word 
of  institution  pronounced  over  them  (which  of  itself  can  go  no 
farther  into  the  hearer,  than  the  tympanum  of  his  ear),  effect  a 
moral  and  spiritual  change?  It  is  vile  jugglery:  degrading  to 
Christianity,  and  reducing  the  holy  sacraments  to  a  pagan  incan- 
tation. But  the  Jesuit  pleads,  that  we  see  ten  thousand  cases, 
where  the  external  physical  world  produces  mental  and  moral 
effects,  through  sensation.  We  reply  that  this  is  not  true  in  the 
sense  necessary  to  suppori:  their  doctrine.  Sensation  is  not  the 
efficient,  but  only  the  occasional  cause  of  moral  feeling, 
volition,  &c.  The  efficient  cause  is  in  the  mind's  own  dispo- 
sitions and  free  agency.  The  confusion  of  thought  in  this  plea 
is  the  same  with  that  made  by  the  sensualistic  psychologist, 
when  he  mistakes  inducement  for  motive. 


742  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

But  the  sophism  points  us  to  the  cause  of  a  great  fact  in 
Church  History.  That  fact  is,  that  somehow,  the  opus  operatmn 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments  tends  to  accompany  Pelagian  views 
of  human  nature  and  grace.  One  has  only  to  recall  the  semi- 
Pelagian  tendencies  of  the  Greek  Church,  of  the  Latin  Church, 
notwithstanding  its  strong  Augustinian  impulse  in  its  earlier 
ages,  of  the  English  and  American  Ritualists,  and  last,  of  the 
community  founded  by  Alex.  Campbell.  These  facts  are  too 
uniform  for  chance :  they  betray  a  causation.  From  the  point 
of  view  just  gained,  we  can  easily  detect  it.  The  sacraments 
are  external  ordinances  in  this :  that  they  present  truth  (in  sym- 
bol) objectively.  Hence  it  is  impossible  for  a  rational  man  to 
persuade  himself  that  means,  which  common  sense  can  only 
apprehend  as  didactic,  if  not  fetiches,  can  of  themselves  cause 
spiritual  acts  of  soul,  (graces)  on  any  other  view  of  the  will, 
than  that  of  the  Pelagian.  If  volitions  and  emotions  are  decis- 
ively regulated  by  dispositions,  then  the  a  priori  revolution  of 
the  disposition,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  be  in  order  to  the 
wholesome  influence  of  any  objective.  But  that  is  the  Protest- 
ant view  of  a  sacrament.  If  the  sacrament  occasions  spiritual 
states  and  acts  ex  opere  operato,  it  can  only  be  on  condition  of 
the  will's  self-determination.  Thus,  every  consistent  Ritual- 
ist becomes  a  Pelagian.  What  is  regeneration  by  moral  sua- 
sion, except  an  opus  operatmn  effect  of  the  Word  ? 

But  if  the  other  view  of  the  opus  operatuvi  be  urged  : 
that  the  efficiency  is  spiritual,  and  results,  not  from  the  direct 
causation  of  the  rite  itself,  but  from  the  power  of  God  graciously 
and  sovereignly  connected  therewith  ;  we  demand  the  revealed 
warrant.  Where  is  the  promise  to  the  Church  from  God,  that  this 
connection  shall  be  absolute  ?  The  Scriptures  are  silent,  when 
properly  interpreted.  The  burden  of  proof  must  rest  on  the 
assertors.  They  have  no  text  which  meets  the  demand.  Indeed, 
in  many  places  the  Scriptures  explicitly  declare  the  contrary. 
See,  for  example,  Deut.  x  :  i6  ;  Jer.  iv  :  4  ;  Luke  xiii  :  26,  27  ; 
I  Cor.  xi  :  29  ;  Rom.  ii  :  25th  to  end.  It  may  be  urged  that 
some  of  these  places,  and  especially  the  last,  speak  of  the 
sacraments  of  the  old  dispensation.  It  is  in  the  vain  hope  of 
breaking  the  force  of  these  unanswerable  texts,  that  Rome 
asserts  an  essential  difference  between  the  sacraments  of  the 
old  and  the  new  dispensation,  saying  that  the  former  only  sym- 
bolize, while  the  latter  work,  saving  graces.  The  student  can 
now  see  the  polemic  interest  Rome  has  in  widening  the  differ- 
ences between  the  Old  Testament-  and  the  New,  as  much  as 
possible,  and  in  recognizing  the  least  of  gospel  features  in  the 
Old.  But  I  have  proved  that  the  same  gospel  is  in  both  Testa- 
ments, and  that  there  is  no  generic  difference  in  the  way  the 
sacraments  of  the  two  exhibit  grace.  Here,  in  part,  is  the  im- 
portance of  that  argument.  Especially  do  I  take  my  stand  on 
I  Cor.  X  :  i-io,  and  prove  thence  that  the  sacraments  of  the 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLGGY.  743 

New  Testament  were  viewed  by  the  Apostle,  as  no  more  effec- 
tive, ex  opere  operato,  than  those  of  the  Old,  Thus,  all  the 
demonstrations  of  the  inefificacy  of  circumcision  without  repent- 
ance and  faith,  apply  against  the  Ritualist  and  Papist. 

The  whole  strain  of    Scripture   must  strike  every  candid 
mind,  as    opposed    to    this    theory  of  sacra- 

\Miole   Tenour  of    ^^gntal  grace.     God  portrays  his  gospel  as  a 
Promises  against  it.  .   .        f"      ,.    .  .       ^  •'  &      ^ 

spiritual  religion,  the  contrast  of  a  formalistic 

one.  He  everywhere  heaps  scorn  on  mere  formalism.  As  the 
man  thinketh  in  his  heart,  so  is  he.  To  teach  that  a  man 
becomes  a  Christian  by  the  force  of  any  ceremony,  is  totally 
opposite  to  all  this.  The  argument  may  be  placed  in  an 
exceedingly  definite  light  thus.  Let  them  deny  the  sphragistic 
nature  of  the  sacraments  as  they  may,  it  cannot  be  concealed. 
Least  of  all,  can  the  emblematic  relation  between  gospel 
promises  and  sacraments  be  denied.  Now  the  emblem  always 
means  just  what  it  is  appointed  didactically  to  emblematize : 
no  more.  The  seal  binds  only  to  what  is  written  above  in  the 
bond  to  which  it  is  appended.  In  every  contest  as  to  the  intent 
of  a  seal,  this  solution  is  so  obvious,  that  any  other  is  ridicu- 
lous :  "  Look  into  the  bond,  and  see  what  is  written  above."  The 
Bible  is  the  bond.  When  we  read  there,  we  universally  find  re- 
demption promised  to  faith  and  repentance.  The  seal  appended 
beneath  cannot  contradict  the  body  of  the  instrument. 

Alien  as  the  doctrine  we  refute  is,  from  the  whole  letter  and 

^  ^      .        spirit    of    Scripture ;    it    has    an    element    of 
Motive  of  Doctrine.  1      •,  1  •    1  -n       1 

popularity,  which  will  always  secure  nume- 
rous votaries,  until  grace  undeceives  them.  It  chimes  in  with 
the  superstition  natural  to  a  soul  dead  in  sin.  It  is  delightful 
to  the  soul  which  hates  true  repentance,  and  loves  its  spiritual 
laziness,  and  abhors  thorough-going  heart  religion,  and  yet 
dreads  hell,  to  be  taught  that  it  can  be  equipped  for  heaven, 
without  these  arduous  means,  by  an  easy  piece  of  ecclesiastical 
legerdemain. 

(f )  But  Papists  and  Prelatists  quote  a  class  of  passages, 
.,  ,    which   they   claim    to    give    an  immediate 

Scriptures  Reconciled.       rc.^-  ».      ^.-u         v       -^      ir        c  t 

^  erhciency  to  the  rite  itself.      See  Jno.   111  : 

5  ;  Acts  ii  :  38  ;  xxii  :  16  ;  Eph.  v  :  26  ;  i  Cor.  x  :  17  ;  Rom. 
vi  :  3  ;  Luke  xxii  :  19,  20,  &c.  Protestants  explain  these  pas- 
sages in  consistency  with  their  views,  by  saying  that  they  are 
all  expressions  based  on  the  sacramental  union,  and  to  be  ex- 
plained in  consistency  with  it  :  e.  g.,  in  Jno.  iii  :  5,  the  birth  of 
the  water  means  the  birth  by  that  which  the  water  represents, 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Nicodemus'  great  error  was,  that  he  had  put 
too  much  dependence  on  water.  He  had  relied  too  much  on 
his  "  divers  baptisms"  and  hand-washings.  Christ  says  to  him, 
that  he  must  have  a  cleansing  more  efficacious  than  that  by 
water,  the  cleansing  of  the  Spirit.  That  He  does  not  mean  to 
assert  for  water  baptism  an  equal  effect  and  necessity  with  re- 


744  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES. 

generation,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  in  ah  the  subsequent 
verses,  he  omits  the  water  wholly.  The  propriety  of  this  inter- 
pretation of  all  the  similar  places  is  defended,  first  by  the  analo- 
gous case  of  the  hypostatic  union  in  Christ's  person,  where  God 
is  in  one  place  spoken  of  as  having  blood,  and  the  Prince  of 
Life  as  dying.  Papists  agree  with  us,  that  in  virtue  of  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  one  person,  the  person,  even 
when  denominated  by  the  one  nature,  is  represented  as  doing 
what,  in  strictness  of  speech,  the  other  alone  could  do.  So,  in 
the  sacraments,  there  are  suggested  two  things — the  rite,  and 
the  grace  signified  by  the  rite.  How  natural,  then,  that  a  He- 
brew should  atrribute  to  the  rite,  by  figure,  what  the  answering 
grace  really  effects  ?  In  the  second  place,  this  probability  is 
greatly  strengthened  by  noticing  the  way,  natural  to  Hebrew 
mind,  of  speaking  concerning  all  other  symbols,  as  types,  &c. 
The  symbol  is  almost  uniformly  said  to  be  the  thing  symbol- 
ized ;  when  the  meaning  is,  that  it  represents  it.  Third  :  our 
interpretation  of  these  passages  is  adopted  by  Scripture  itself, 
in  one  of  the  very  strongest  instances,  thus  authorizing  our 
view  of  the  exegesis  of  the  whole  class.  See  i  Pet.  iii  ;  21. 
Here,  first  baptism  is  said  to  save  us,  as  the  ark  saved  Noah. 
What  expression  could  be  stronger?  But  yet  the  Apostle 
explains  himself  by  saying,  it  is  not  the  putting  away  of  the 
filth  of  the  flesh  which  effects  it,  but  the  answer  [i-Bp(OTr^f/.a)  of 
a  good  conscience  towards  God.  These  words  ascribe  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  sacrament  to  the  honesty  of  the  participant's  con- 
fession ;  and  this  whether  with  Turrettin  and  Winer  we  translate 
"  request  to  God,"  or  with  Neander  and  Robinson,  "  Sponsio." 
Fourth.  If  men  will  persist  in  making  the  above  Scriptures 
teach  the  o/>t/s  operatuDi,  the  only  result  will  be  that  the  Scrip- 
ture will  be  made  to  contradict  itself;  for  it  is  impossible  to 
explain  away  all  the  proof-texts  we  have  arrayed. 

This  difference  between  us  and  Rome  is  fundamental ; 
because  she  teaches  men  to  depend  essentially  on  the  wrong 
trust  for  salvation.     The  result  must  be  ruin  of  souls. 

The  question  of  the  necessity  of  the  sacraments  in  order  to 
salvation,  is  nearly  connected  with  the  pre- 

stHSNerslV""^''  ^^°"^  °"^-  This  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  same  persons  usually  hold  their 
essential  necessity,  and  their  efficacy  ex  opere  operato.  And 
this  consistently  ;  for  if  the  sacraments  have  that  marvellous 
virtue,  it  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  man  can  safely  lack  them. 
Now,  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the  neglect  of  the  sacra- 
ments would  destroy  the  soul.  To  observe  them  is  God's  com- 
mand. He  who  willingly  disobeys  this  command,  and  perse- 
veres, will  thereby  destroy  his  soul,  just  for  the  same  reason  that 
any  wilful  disobedience  will.  But  then,  it  is  not  the  lack  of  the 
sacraments,  but  the  impenitent  state  of  the  soul,  which  is  the 
true  cause  of  ruin.     Turrettin  ;  "  Eoruvi  non  privatio,  sed  con- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  745 

tentptus  damitat."  The  command  to  observe  them  is  not  of 
perpetual  and  original,  but  only  of  positive  institution ;  and 
owes  its  force  over  our  consciences  to  the  mere  precept  of 
God.  Hence  they  should  be  regarded  from  the  same  general 
point  of  view  with  other  positive  rites.        We  sustain  this  : 

(a)  By  reference  to  the  free  and  spiritual  character  of  the 

gospel   plan   as  indicated  throughout   Scrip- 

rgumen  s.  ture.     God  has  not  tied  His  grace  to  forms, 

places,  or  sacerdotal  orders.     All  men  alike  have  access  to  His 

redeeming  mercy,  provided  their  hearts  desire  it,  and  under  all 

outward  circumstances.     Jno.    iv  :  21,  23  ;  Luke  xviii  :  14,  &c. 

(b).  We  infer  the  same  thing  from  the  numerous  and  ex- 
ceedingly explicit  passages  which  promise  the  immediate 
bestowal-  of  redeeming  grace,  and  mention  no  other  term  than 
believing.  Some  of  them  do  it  in  terms  which  hardly  admit  of 
evasion.  E.  g.,  Jno.  v  :  24 ;  vi :  29.  Does  not  this  seem  to  say 
that  believing  alone  puts  the  soul  in  possession  of  redemption  ? 
True  the  Papist  may  say  that  one  passage  of  Scripture  should 
be  completed  by  another;  and  that  in  other  places  (e.  g.,  Jno. 
iii :  5  ;  Mark  xvi :  16)  the  observance  of  the  sacrament  is  coupled 
with  the  believing  grace,  as  a  term  of  salvation.  But  when 
those  passages  are  well  understood,  it  is  seen  that  the  import- 
ance of  the  outward  sacrament  depends  wholly  on  the  sacra- 
mental union.  We  repeat,  that  the  places  in  which  faith  alone 
is  mentioned  as  the  instrumental  condition,  are  so  numerous,  so 
explicit,  and  some  of  them  professed  answers  to  questions  so 
distinct  as  (Acts  xvi  :  31),  that  it  is  simply  incredible  the  Holy 
Ghost  would  have  so  omitted  the  mention  of  the  sacraments  if 
they  were  essential. 

(c).  But  their  nature  shows  they  are  not.  They  are  sensi- 
ble signs  of  an  inward  grace.  The  reception  of  them  there- 
fore implies  the  possession  of  grace  ;  a  sufficient  proof  it  does 
not  originate  it. 

(d).  This  leads  us  to  add,  that  many  have  actually  been 
saved  without  any  sacraments.  Abraham  and  Cornelius  were 
both  in  a  state  of  grace  before  they  partook  of  any  sacrament. 
The  penitent  thief  went  to  paradise  without  ever  partaking. 
Circumcision  could  not  be  administered  till  the  eighth  day  of 
the  Hebrew  infant's  life  :  and  doubtless  many  died  uncircum- 
cised  in  the  first  week  of  their  life.  Were  these  all  lost  ?  This 
Popish  doctrine  gives  a  frightful  view  of  the  condition  of  the 
infants  of  Pagans  :  that  forsooth,  because  they  are  debarred 
from  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  among  the  millions  who  die 
without  actual  transgression,  there  is  not  one  elect  infant !  Are 
all  these  lost  ? 

Last,  the  Scriptures  everywhere  hold  out  the  truth,  that 
the  Word  is  the  great  means  of  redemption;  and  it  is  plainly 
indicated  that  it  is  the  only  essential  means.  See  Rom.  x  :  14: 
2  Tim.  iii  :  15. 


746  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

The  traditions  and  usages  of  the  Church  as  to  lay  admin- 
10.  Sacraments  istration  of  sacraments  have  been  in  the 
Should  be  Adminis-  main  very  uniform.  It  has  always  been  cen- 
tered Only  by  Minis-  demned.  The  inordinate  importance  attached 
to  baptism  did  indeed  lead  the  Romish 
Church,  (and  after  her,  the  English),  to  decide  that  the  baptism 
of  a  layman,  and  even  of  a  woman,  was  valid,  though  irregular, 
if  the  child  was  in  extremis,  and  no  priest  at  hand.  Even  this, 
most  Presbyterians  would  condemn  as  utterly  invalid.  The 
German  antiquaries  (e.  g.,  Mosheim)  sometimes  assert  that  in 
the  primitive  Church  any  person  who  made  a  convert  felt  au- 
thorized to  baptize  him.  This  appears  to  me  very  doubtful. 
Ignatius,  for  instance,  who  is,  if  genuine,  one  of  the  earliest 
Apostolic  Fathers,  says  that  the  Eucharist  which  the  Bishop 
celebrates  should  alone  be  considered  a  valid  one ;  and  that  no 
one  should  presume  to  baptize,  except  the  Bishop,  or  one  com- 
missioned by  him.  This  is  certainly  the  language  of  uniform 
antiquity,  expressed  in  Councils  and  Fathers.  Nor  is  it  merely 
the  result  of  clerical  ambition  and  exclusiveness.  Since  the  sac- 
raments are  a  solemn  and  formal  representation  of  Gospel  truth 
by  symbols,  a  sort  of  pantomimic  Word,  it  seems  most  reason- 
able that  the  exhibition  of  them  should  be  reserved  to  the  same 
class  to  whom  is  committed  the  authoritative  preaching  of  the 
Word.  And  it  may  be  urged,  with  yet  more  force,  that  since 
the  presbyters,  and  especially  the  pastor  of  the  Church,  are  the 
guardians  of  the  sealing  ordinances,  responsible  for  their  de- 
fence against  abuse  and  profanation,  it  is  reasonable,  yea,  neces- 
sary, that  they  should  have  the  control  of  their  administration. 
This  consideration  seems  to  me  to  have  the  force  of  a  just  and 
necessary  inference.  Again  the  great  commission  (Matt,  xxviii ; 
19;  Mark  xvi :  15)  seems  evidently  to  give  the  duties  of  preach- 
ing and  baptizing  to  the  same  persons.  The  persons  primarily 
addressed  were  the  apostles ;  but  the  apostles  as  representative 
of  the  whole  Church.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  deny  to  all  but 
apostles  authority  to  preach,  and  a  share  in  the  gracious  promise 
of  Christ's  presence  which  accompanies  the  commission  ;  and 
this  again  would  compel  us  to  admit  that  the  right  to  preachy 
and  the  promise  of  Christ's  blessing,  have  been  lost  to  the 
whole  Church  for  nearly  1800  years,  or  else  to  accept  the  Epis- 
copal conclusion  that  the  apostolic  office  still  continues.  Hence, 
the  argument  from  the  commission  gives  only  probable  proof. 
This,  however,  is  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  in- 
stance in  Scripture  of  any  sacraments  administered  by  any  ex- 
cept men  who  were  ministers  of  the  gospel,  either  by  charism, 
or  by  ordination.  Perhaps  the  most  practical  argument  against 
lay  administration  of  sacraments  is,  from  the  intolerable  disor- 
ders and  divisions,  which  have  always  arisen,  and  must  ever 
arise,  from  such  a  usage.  The  sacraments  have  this  use  among 
others,  to  be  badges  and  pledges  of  Church  membership.     The 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  y^J 

control  of  them  cannot  therefore  be  given  to  others  than  the 
appointed  rulers  of  the  Church :  to  do  so  is  utter  disorganiza- 
tion. 

The   Council  of  Trent  teaches  that  the  three  sacraments 

of  baptism,   confirmation    and     orders,    can 
II.    Indelible  Char-  i  j.    j    u  j.i.         •  •    ._ 

acter  Refuted.  never  be   repeated,  because  they  imprmt  on 

the  recipient  an  indelible  character.  They 
have  not,  indeed,  been  able  to  decide  what  this  character  is,  nor 
on  what  part  of  man  it  is  imprinted.  It  cannot  be  the  graces 
of  redemption ;  because  Rome  teaches  that  they  may  all  be 
lost  by  the  true  believer,  through  backsliding,  while  this  charac- 
ter can  never  be  lost,  to  whatever  apostasy  the  man  may  sink  : 
and  because  she  teaches  that  the  recipient  in  a  state  of  mortal 
sin  receives  no  graces  through  the  sacrament,  yet  he  would  re- 
ceive the  "  character."  And  again,  all  the  sacraments  confer 
grace,  whereas  only  these  three  confer  "  character"  indelibly. 
Nor  can  it  be  any  other  sort  of  qualification  for  office  (in  ordi- 
nation, for  instance),  for  men  lose  all  qualification  through  in- 
firmity, dotage,  or  heresy  ;  yet  they  never  lose  the  "  character." 
Nor  can  they  decide  on  what  it  is  imprinted,  whether  on  the 
body,  mind,  conscience,  or  affections.  This  uncertainty, 
together  with  the  utter  silence  of  the  Scriptures,  is  the  sufficient 
refutation  of  the  absurdity.  If  you  seek  for  the  motive  of 
Rome  in  endorsing  such  a  doctrine,  you  will  find  it  in  her  lust 
of  power.  By  every  baptism  she  acquires  a  subject  of  her 
ghostly  empire,  and  every  ordination,  while  it  confers  on  the 
clergyman  a  ghostly  eminence,  also  binds  him  in  the  tenfold 
bonds  of  the  iron  despotism  of  the  canon  law.  Now,  it  suits 
the  grasping  and  despotic  temper  of  Rome  to  teach  that  these 
bonds  of  allegiance  are  inexorable  :  that  when  they  are  once 
incurred,  no  apostasy,  no  act  of  the  subject's  choice  or  will,  can 
ever  make  him  less  a  subject,  or  enable  him  to  evade  the  tyran- 
nical hand  of  his  mistress. 

As  to  confirmation  and  orders,  we  do  not  feel  bound  to 
solve  any  questions  concerning  their  sacramental  character, 
because  we  do  not  believe  them  to  be  sacraments.  As  to  bap- 
tism, we  assign  this  reason  why  it  is  never  to  be  repeated  to  the 
same  subject  like  the  Lord's  supper :  It  is  the  initiating  sacra- 
ment, like  circumcision.  The  man  who  is  in  the  house  needs  no 
repeated  introduction  into  the  house.  It  "  signifies  our  ingraft- 
ing into.  Christ."  He  who  is  grafted  in  once  is  virtually  united, 
and  requires  no  new  union  to  be  constituted. 


748  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

APPENDIX. 

The  scriptural  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  is  so  vital,  so 
widely  corrupted,  and  so  involved  in  the  claims  of  Prelacy  and 
Apostolic  Succession,  that  it  is  important  for  the  student  to  gain 
a  firm  grasp  of  the  relation.  Hence  I  desire,  before  proceeding 
to  the  specific  discussion  of  the  two  sacraments,  to  clear  up  that 
connection. 

Two  theories  of  redemption  prevail  in  Christendom,  which 
are,  in  fact,  essentially  opposite.  If  one  is  the  gospel  of  God, 
the  other  cannot  be  ;  and  it  must  be  condemned  as  "  another 
gospel,"  whose  teachers  ought  to  be  "Anathema,  Maranatha." 
The  one  of  these  plans  of  salvation  may  be  decribed  as  the 
high-prelatic  ;  it  is  held  by  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches,  and 
the  Episcopalian  Ritualists.  It  is  often  called  the  theory  of 
"  sacramental  grace ;"  not  because  true  Protestants  deny  all 
grace  through  sacraments,  but  because  that  theory  endeavors  to 
make  sacraments  essential  to  grace.  The  dogma  of  tactual  suc- 
cession through  prelates  from  the  Apostles,  is  a  corner-stone ; 
for  it  teaches  that  the  Apostles  transmitted  their  peculiar  office, 
by  ordination,  to  prelates,  and  with  it,  a  peculiar  yaoiaaa  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  making  every  "  priest  "  through  this  laying  on  of 
hands,  a  depository  of  the  spiritual  energy,  and  every  "  bishop," 
or  Apostle,  a  "  proxy"  of  the  Saviour  Himself,  endued  with  the 
redemptive  gifts  in  the  same  sense  in  which  He  was  endued 
with  them  by  His  Father.  Thus,  for  instance,  prelacy  inter- 
prets Jno.  XX  :  21.  "As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send 
I  you."  The  theory,  then,  amounts  to  this :  that  Christ's  pro- 
vision for  applying  redemption  to  man  consisted  simply  in  His 
instituting  on  earth  a  successive,  prelatic  hierarchy,  as  His 
"  proxies,"  empowered  to  work,  through  His  sacraments,  the 
salvation  of  submissive  participants,  by  a  supernatural  power 
precisely  analogous  to  that  by  which  He  enabled  Peter  to  speak 
in  an  unknown  tongue,  and  by  which  Peter  and  John  enabled 
the  lame  man  to  walk.  Let  the  student  grasp  distinctly  what 
prelacy  means  here.  It  is,  that  the  "  Bishop"  (who  is  literally 
Apostle,)  in  ordaining  a  "  priest,"  does  the  identical  thing  which 
Paul  did.  Acts  xix  :  6,  to  the  first  Ephesian  converts  :  "  when 
he  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them, 
and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophesied;"  and  that  when 
this  priest  baptizes  an  infant,  for  instance,  he  supernaturally 
removes  the  disease  of  original  sin  by  the  water  and  the  chrism, 
as  the  man  whom  an  Apostle  had  endued  with  the  ydn'.atia  of 
miracle-working  healed  epilepsy  by  his  touch.  *  It  follows  of 
course,  that  the  agency  of  these  men,  divinely  endued  with  the 
yaoiaaa  of  spiritual  healing,  and  of  the  sacraments  they  use, 
are  essential  to  the  reception  of  redemptive  grace.  So,  the 
priestly  efficiency,  through  the  sacrament  is  "  ex  opeic  opciato," 
and  does  its  work  on   all  souls   to  which  it  is  applied,  indepen- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  749 

dent  of  their  subjective  exercises  of  receptive  knowledge,  faith 
and  penitence  ;  provided  the  obstacle  of  "  mortal  sin"  be  not 
interposed. 

Now,  if  our,  rival  theory  is  true,  it  is  perfectly  obvious  this 
scheme  of  "  sacramental  grace"  is  a  profane  dream,  and  is  related 
to  the  Gospel  precisely  as  a  fetich,  or  a  Pagan  incantation.  It 
is  an  attempt  to  cleanse  the  soul  by  an  act  of  ecclesiastical 
jugglery.  This  enormous  profanity  is  not  charged  upon  every 
misguided  votary  of  prelacy.  As  in'  so  many  other  cases,  so 
here,  grace  may  render  men's  inward  faith  better  than  their 
dogma  ;  the  Holy  Spirit  may  mercifully  turn  the  soul's  eye 
aside  from  the  soul-destroying  falsehood  of  the  scheme,  to  the 
didactic  truths  so  beautifully  taught  in  the  scriptural  sacraments 
and  the  Word.  But  the  godliness  of  such  semi-prelatists  is  in 
spite  of,  and  not  because  of,  the  scheme,  which  is  essentially 
Pagan  and  not  Christian.  What  a  bait  this  dogma  offers  to  the 
ambition  of  one  like  Simon  Magus,  greedy  of  the  power  of 
priestcraft,  need  not  be  explained.  It  is  not  charged  that  every 
prelatist  adopts  the  delusion  from  this  damnable  motive ;  many 
doubtless  lean  to  it  from  the  unconscious  prompting  of  self- 
importance.  It  is  a  fine  thing,  when  a  poor  mortal  can  persuade 
himself  that  he  is  the  essential  channel  of  eternal  life  to  his 
fellow,  the  "  proxy"  of  the  Son  of  God  and  king  of  heaven. 
The  major  part  of  the  nominal  Christian  world  has  gone  astray 
after  this  baptized  paganism,  from  motives  which  are  natural  to 
sinful  beings.  They  are  instinctive  superstition — one  of  the 
regular  consequences  of  man's  fall  and  apostasy — ^his  unbeliev- 
ing, sensuous  nature,  craving,  like  all  other  forms  of  idolatry, 
the  palpable  and  material  as  the  object  of  its  exercises,  and  the 
intense  longing  of  the  sinful  soul,  remorseful  and  still  enamoured 
of  its  sin,  for  some  palpable  mode  of  reconciliation  without 
hearty,  inward  repentance  and  mortification  of  sin.  As  long  as 
men  are  wicked,  superstitious,  conscious  of  guilt  and  in  love 
with  sin,  the  prelatic  scheme  will  continue  to  have  abundance 
of  followers. 

The  rival  doctrine  of  the  application  of  redemption  is 
summed  up  in  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  "  Sanctify  them  through 
thy  truth  :  Thy  word  is  truth."  Or,  of  the  Apostle  :  "  It  pleased 
God,  by  the  foolishness  of  preaching  tasave  them  that  believe." 
(i  Cor.  i  :  20).  "So  then,  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing 
by  the  word  of  God."  (Rom.  x  :  4-17).  Or,  of  the  Evangelist, 
(Jno.  i  :  12)  "To  as  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He 
power  [i^o'jaui)  to  become  the  sons  of  God ;  even  to  them 
which  believed  on  His  name."  Or,  of  Eph.  iii  :  17.  "  Christ 
dwells  in  your  hearts  by  faith."  Or,  of  i  Jno.  v  :  1 1,  12.  "  This 
is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and  this 
life  is  in  His  Son.  He  that  hath  (syzc  holds  to)  the  Son,  hath  the 
life,  and  he  that  hath  not  the  Son  of  God  hath  not  the  life." 
We  learn  by  the  previous  chapters,  that  the  "  holding"  of  the 


750  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Son  is  simply  faith.  To  exhaust  tlie  Bible-proofs  of  this  view 
would  be  to  repeat  a  large  part  of  both  Testaments.  Ps.  xix  : 
7-10  ;  cxix  :  9,  93,  98,  104,  130  ;  Prov.  iv  :  13  ;  Isaiah  xxxiii  : 
6  ;  liii  :  il  ;  Jer.   iii  :  15  ;   Hos.   iv  :  6  ;   Hab.   ii  :  14  ;    i  Jno.  v  : 

1  ;•  I  Pet.  I  :  23  ;  Luke  viii  :  11  ;  i  Cor.  iv  :  15  ;  Jno.  viii  :  32; 
V  :  24  ;  XV  :  3  ;  Jas.  i  :  18  ;  Acts  xiii  :  26  ;  xx  :  32.  The  pre- 
latic  view  of  sacramental  grace  conflicts  with  the  whole  tenour 
of  Scripture.  This  constantly  teaches,  that  the  purchased 
redemption  is  applied  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  Gospel  truth 
intelligently  believed  and  embraced,  without  other  conditions  or 
media :  that  hence,  all  preachers,  even  inspired  Apostles,  are 
only  "  ministers  by  whom  we  believed :"  that  Christ  is  the 
only  priest  in  the  universe  :  that  the  sacraments  are  only  "  means 
of  grace"  doing  good  generally  like  sound  preaching:  and  that 
Christ  reserves  the  administering  of  them  to  the  ministers,  not 
on  any  hierarchical  or  sacerdotal  ground,  but  simply  on  grounds 
of  e'jza^'ia  and  didactic  propriety. 

Now  our  refutation  takes  this  form  :  First,  that  the  whole 
prelatic  structure  rests  on  the  assumption  that  whatever  is  said 
about  the  laying  on  of  the  Apostles'  hands  to  confer  the  Holy 
Ghost,  relates  to  ordination  to  clerical  office.  Second :  that 
this  reference  is  a  mere  blunder,  an  utter  perversion  of  the 
Scriptures. 

I.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  unwarranted  confusion  does 
present  the  sole  scriptural  basis  to  which  prelacy  pretends. 
This  we  prove  by  the  Romish  standards.  Rom.  Cat.  pt.  2,  ch. 
vii,  qu.  25,  asserting  that  the  administration  of  the  "sacrament 
of  orders"  belongs  to  the  bishop,  cites  Acts  vi:5,  6;  xiv  :  22. 

2  Tim.  i :  6.  An  examination  of  these  texts  (in  the  proper 
place)  will  show  that  the  very  blunder  charged  is  made — Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  Sess.  23d,  De  Ordine.  "  The  Sacred  Scriptures, 
show — that  the  power  of  consecrating,  sacrificing  and  distribut- 
ing His  body  and  blood,  and  also  of  remitting  sins,  has  been 
delivered  to  the  apostles  and  their  successors  in  the  priesthood." 
§  iii.  "  Grace  is  conferred  in  holy  orders."  Canon  iv.  "  If  any- 
body says  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  given  by  holy  orders,  and 
that  accordingly  the  bishops  have  no  ground  to  say  (to  the 
recipient)  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;  "  or  that  the  character 
is  not  impressed  through  this  sacrament,  etc.  let  him  be 
accursed."  That  the  grace  supposed  to  be  received  in  orders  is 
not  that  of  sanctification  and  redemption,  is  clear  from  Rome's 
assertion,  that  the  Canonical  priest  may,  like  Judas,  wholly  lack 
this.  The  grace  in  orders  must  then  be  the  other;  the  miracle 
working  yd(n(Tii.a. 

The  Anglican  Church  bases  its  claim,  so  far  as  it  is  sacra- 
mentarian,  on  the  same  confusion,  abusing  the  same  texts. 
In  the  form  for  ordination,  the  prelate,  in  laying  on  hands,  says; 
"  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office  and  work  of  a 
bishop  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee  by  the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  75 1 

imposition  of  our  hands,"  &c.  So,  the  Scripture  here  alluded  to, 
John  XX  :2i,  is  the  one  directed'to  be  read  before  the  consecra- 
tion ;  and  the  words  which  follow  are  precisely  those  of  2  Tim. 
i :  6.  The  Anglican  Church  has  learned  her  lessons  from  Rome 
well.  The  prelatic  expositors  disclose  the  same  foundation  for 
the  sacramentarian  doctrine.  Theophylect,  on  2  Tim.  i :  6, 
gives,  as  the  equivalent  of  the  words,  o^a  ri^;-  izc^c^sco^  zco'j  yziuCov 
jio'j,  this  gloss :  Tout  iazc  oze  ae  iysifjozououu  s.~iaxo7:ov — thus  con- 
founding the  appointment  to  clerical  office,  with  an  apostle's 
bestowal  of  spiritual  gifts.  Chrysostom,  on  Acts  vi  :8,  says  : 
"  This  man  (Stephen)  derived  a  larger  grace.  But  before  his 
ordination  he  wrouglit  no  signs,  but  only  after  he  was  mani- 
fested. This  was  designed  to  teach  them,  that  grace  alone  was 
not  sufficient ;  but  that  ordination  is  requisite,  in  order  that  the 
access  of  the  spirit  may  take  place."  Dr.  Hammond  [Parai- 
nesis,  Qiiere.  5th)  "  yicoodiala  \s  answerable  to  that  imposition 
of  hands  in  ordination,  so  often  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment— as  generally,  when  by  that  laying  on  of  hands,  it  is  said 
they  received  the  Holy  Ghost :  where  the  Holy  Ghost  contains 
all  the  yapiap.a.za.  required  for  the  pastoral  function,  and  also  sig- 
nifies power  from  on  high,"  &c.  Hear  him  again  :  "  Of  this 
"ceremony  thus  used"  (meaning  ordination  to  the  clerical  office), 
several  mentions  there  are.  First,  Acts  viii  :  17,  where,  after 
Philip  the  deacon  had  preached  and  baptized  in  Samaria,  Peter 
and  John  the  Apostles  came  from  Jerusalem  to  perfect  the  work, 
and  laid  hands  on  them  [not  on  all  that  were  baptized,  but  on 
some  special  person  whom  they  thought  meet]  and  they  received 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Dr.  Hammond  was  high  authority  with  pre- 
latists. 

Another  evidence  of  the  fatal  confusion,  which  is  the  basis 
of  their  whole  scheme,  involving  the  whole  body  of  prelatists, 
is  their  own  invention  of  the  word,  "Simony,"  to  describe  the 
procurement  of  "  orders  "  by  money.  This  term  is  confessedly 
taken  from  Simon  Magus,  of  Acts  viii :  and  of  course  it 
is  meant  to  describe  the  sin  which  he  proposed  to  commit,  verses 
18,  19.  Note  that  the  thing  Simon  craved  was  not  the  ability 
to  speak  with  tongues,  or  work  some  such  miraculous  sign.  Pos- 
sibly he  had  already  received  this  :  as  a  reprobate  Judas  had. 
He  desired  the  ability  to  confer  this  power  on  others.  And 
this  criminal  proposal,  so  perfectly  defined  by  Simon's  own 
words,  is  precisely  the  thing  selected  by  Rome  and  the  Angli- 
can Church,  to  denominate  the  sin  of  procuring  clerical  orders 
by  money.  The  disclosure  is  complete.  Prelacy  deems  that 
the  thing  Peter  and  John  had  been  doing  in  Samaria,  and  the 
thing  Simon  wished  to  do,  was  transmitting  the  Apostolic  suc- 
cession by  ordination. 

It  is  thus  proved,  that  the  sole  basis  of  Scripture  which 
prelacy  has  to  offer  is  the  mistaken  notion,  that  the  "  laying  on 
of  hands,"  by  which  "the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,"  was  prelatic 


752  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

ordination.  The  theory  is,  that  the  bishop  (Apostle)  thus  con- 
fers a  supernatural  charism  on  the  priest ;  by  virtue  of  which 
the  latter  works  the  real  presence  in  the  eucharist  and  the  "  sac- 
rifice of  the  altar,"  remits  sin,  and  cleanses  the  infant's  soul  with 
baptismal  water,  precisely  in  the  same  generic  mode  in  which 
the  primitive  disciple,  endued  with  a  -^dn'Mixa,  wrought  a  mir- 
acle. 

II.  But  we  complete  the  utter  destruction  of  the  scheme  by 
proving  that  their  conception  of  this  '/tcoo&zala  is  a  blunder, 
and  a  baseless  folly.  To  effect  this,  we  first  describe  the 
true  understanding,  and  then  establish  it.  We  assert  that  this 
laying  on  of  hands  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  ordina- 
tion at  all,  and  did  not  introduce  its  recipients  into  a  clerical 
order,  or  make  them  less  laymen  than  before.  It  was  the  be- 
stowal of  an  extraordinary  power,  for  a  purely  temporal  pur- 
pose ;  to  demonstrate  to  unbelievers, the  divine  claim  of  the 
new  dispensation.  See  i  Cor.  xiv  :  22,  with  14,  19;  Mark  xvi : 
1 5-18  ;  Acts  iv  :  29,  30  ;  v  :  12 ;  Heb.  ii  :  4,  and  such  like  texts. 
The  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  is 'the  corner-stone  of  the  Gos- 
pel-evidence. This  fact  was  to  be  established  by  the  witness 
of  twelve  men.  An  unbelieving  world  was  invited  to  commit 
its  spiritual  destiny  to  the  "  say-so "  of  twelve  men,  strangers 
and  obscure.  It  was  absolutely  essential  that  God  should  sus- 
tain their  witness  by  some  supernatural  attestations.  See  again, 
Mark  xvi  :  18;  Acts  ii  :  32,  33.  But  twelve  men  could  not 
preach  everywhere  :  whence  it  was  at  first  equally  important  that 
others  should  be  armed  with  these  divine  "signs."  Through 
what  channel  might  these  other  evangelists  best  receive  the 
power  to  emit  them  ?  The  answer  displays  clearly  the  con- 
sistency of  our  exposition  :  It  was  most  suitable  that  the  power 
in  others  should  come  through  the  twelve  witnesses ;  because 
thus  the  "  signs  "  exhibited,  reflected  back  an  immediate  attest- 
ation on  their  truth.  Thus,  let  us  represent  to  ourselves  a  child 
of  Cornelius  the  Centurion,  exercising  gifts  unquestionably  su- 
pernatural before  pagans  in  Caesarea,  This  proves  that  God 
has  here  intervened.  But  for  what  end  ?  That  boy  can  be  no 
eye-witness  to  Christ's  resurrection ;  and  he  does  not  claim  to 
be :  for  he  did  not  see  it,  and  he  was  not  acquainted  with  Jesus' 
person  and  features.  But  he  can  say,  that  he  derived  his  power 
from  the  witness,  Peter;  and,  Peter  assured  him,  direct  from  a 
risen  Christ.  Just  so  far,  then,  as  spectators  verify  the  super- 
natural character  of  that  boy's  performances,  they  are  a  divine 
attestation  to  Peter's  word  concerning  the  resurrection.  So 
Timothy's  yaoi<Tii.o~a  were  related  to  the  witnessing  of  Paul,  who 
conferred  them.  In  brief:  it  was  proper  that  others'  ability  to 
exhibit  "  signs  "  should  proceed  visibly  from  the  Apostles,  be- 
cause the  use  of  the  signs  was  to  sustain  the  testimony  of  the 
twelve.  Hence  the  rule  in  the  Apostolic  day,  which  the  acute 
Simon  so  clearly  perceived  ;  that  it  was  "through  laying  on  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  753 

the  Apostles'  hands  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given."  And  I  assert 
that  there  is  not  a  case  in  the  New  Testament,  where  any  other 
than  an  Apostle's  hand  was  employed  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost, 
if  any  human  agency  was  employed.  Search  and  see.  Hence 
it  follows,  that  since  the  death  of  the  original  twelve,  there  has 
never  been  a  human  being  in  the  Church  who  was  able  to  give 
this  gift. 

For,  the  necessity  was  temporary.  After  the  death  of  the 
Apostles,  the  civilized  world  was  dotted  over  with  churches. 
The  Canon  of  Scripture  was  complete.  The  unbelieving  world 
was  furnished  with  another  adequate  line  of  evidence  (which 
has  been  deepening  to  our  day)  in  souls  sanctified  and  pagan 
society  purified.  TKe  charismatic  signs  ceased  because  they 
were  no  longer  essential.  See  Luke  xvi  :  31.  The  world  is  now 
in  such  relation  to  the  Scripture  testimony,  as  was  the  Jew  of 
Christ's  day. 

Now,  we  claim  a  powerful  and  a  sufficient  proof  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  theory,  in  its  satisfying  consistency.  It  recon- 
ciles everything  in  the  Scripture  teachings  and  history.  We 
claim  that  it  tallies  exactly  with  Paul's  prediction  of  the  cessation 
of  the  charismatic  powers,  in  i  Cor.  xiii :  8.  It  explains  exactly  the 
date  and  mode  of  the  cessation  of  genuine  miracles  out  of  the 
Church.  Church  historians  know  how  anxiously  miracles  were 
claimed  by  the  Fathers  down  to  the  4th  (and  indeed  the  pres- 
ent) century,  and  the  obscurity  in  which  the  facts  in  the  2nd 
and  3rd  centuries  are  involved.  Well :  on  our  view,  real  mir- 
acles might  have  continued  just  one  generation  after  the 
Twelve.  John,  the  aged,  might  have  conferred  the  power  on 
some  young  evangelist,  the  year  of  the  former's  death.  The 
Church  would  be  naturally  reluctant  to  surrender  the  splendid 
endowment.  The  discrimination  between  surprising,  and  truly 
supernatural  events,  was  crude.  The  age  of  "pious  frauds" 
was  at  hand.  Thus,  as  the  genuine  miracles  faded  out,  the 
spurious  had  their  day. 

Again  :  that  this  laying  on  of  hands  was  not  ordination 
and  did  not  confer  orders  at  all,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  an 
apostolic  succession,  is  proved  beyond  all  question,  by  these 
points.  Paul  ordains  that  a  "neophyte"  must  not  be  permitted 
to  receive  orders.  But  this  endowment  was  bestowed  immedi- 
ately after  baptism ;  as  in  Acts  viii :  15,  16  ;  x  :  44,  45  ;  xix  :6. 
Soundness  in  the  faith  was  an  absolute  requisite  to  ordination. 
I  Tim.  ch.  iii.  These  charisms  were  exercised  by  unbelievers. 
I  Cor.  ch.  xiii.  Again,  apostles  forbade  women  to  receive 
orders  :  these  powers  were  enjoyed  by  women,  and  by  children. 
Acts,  xxi :  9  :  x  :  44 

Once  more  :  that  these  endowments  were  not  wrought  by 

ordination  is    proved  by  the  scriptural  rule  of  election  of  all 

deacons  and  ministers,  by    the  brotherhood,  in   order  to   their 

ordination.      This  usage  proves  that  the  ceremony  of  orders 

48* 


754  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

did  not  confer  qualification,  but  only  recognized  its  possession 
by  the  candidates  ;  because  its  prior  possession  by  them  fur- 
nished to  the  brotherhood  the  sole  criterion  by  which  they  were 
to  judge  the  candidates  suitable  persons  to  vote  for.  It  is  on 
this  principle,  that  the  instructions  of  Acts  vi :  2-6;  i  Tim.  iii., 
and  Titus  i :  5-9,  are  given.     Let  this  point  be  pondered. 

But  when  we  proceed  to  the  examination  of  the  places  claimed 
by  the  Prelatists,  and  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  put- 
ting on  of  apostles'  hands,  it  can  be  proved  exegetically  that  each 
place  falls  under  our  theory.  We  have  seen  that  the  main 
place,  perverted  by  Rome  and  the  Anglican  Church,  is  Jno.  xx  : 

21,  22.  To  the  Protestant,  these  words  are  plain  enough. 
Christ  is  God-man,  Redeemer,  High  Priest,  Sacrifice,  Advocate 
and  King  to  believers.  These  offices  He  devolves  on  nobody, 
but  holds  them  always.  He  condesends,  howev^er,  to  be  "sent" 
of  His  Father,  in  the  humble  office  of  preacher  in  the  Church. 
This  office  He  now  devolves  on  the  Twelve.  They,  as  His 
ministers,  are  to  teach  men  the  terms  of  pardon  :  for  "  who  can 
forgive  sin  but  God  only  ?"  But  as  ther  were  to  be  inspired, 
their  teachings  of  the  terms  would  be  authoritative  and  binding. 
This  needed  inspiration  had  been  already  promised.  Jno.  xvi : 
13;  and  so  had  the  miraculous  attestations  which  would  be 
requisite.  Acts  '1:4,  5.  But  the  time  was  now  so  near  at  hand, 
that  Christ  renews  the  promise  in  the  significant  act  of  Jno.  xx : 

22.  This  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  no  other  than  that  real- 
ized at  Pentecost.  Acts  ii :  4.  The  proofs  are,  i.  That  Christ 
already  recognized  the  Eleven  as  endued  with  that  form  of  the 
Holy  Ghost's  power  which  works  faith,  repentance,  and  salva- 
tion. See  and  compare  Matt,  xxvi :  75  ;  Luke  xxii :  31,  32  ; 
Jno.  xxi:i5.  Hence,  the  form  promised  in  that  place  must 
have  been  the  only  other  known  in  Scripture ;  that  namely, 
which  wrought  "signs."  2.  Our  Lord's  words  Acts  i :  4,  5, 
prove  it.  "  Wait,"  saith  He,  "for  the  promise  of  the  Father  which 
ye  have  heard  of  me."  Heard  of  Him,  where  ?  Evidently  in 
John  XX :  21,  22.  The  fulfilment  was  to  be  "not  many  days 
hence."  This  fixes  it  as  the  spiritual  eftiision  of  Pentecost. 
But  now  the  anti-prelatic  demonstration  is  perfect ;  for  notori- 
ously, the  thing  the  Holy  Ghost  enabled  the  apostles  to  do  at 
Pentecost  was  not  "  the  consecration  of  priests,"  or  the  trans- 
mitting of  an  apostolic  succession ;  but  the  exhibition  of  miracles 
to  attest  the  resurrection. 

Peter's  own  explanation  of  the  Pentecostal  endowment 
gives  us  another  demonstration  against  the  prelatic  theory.  He 
tells  the  multitude  (Acts  ii :  14-36.  See  especially  his  main 
proposition  in  verse  36th).  This  is  the  New  Dispensation  of  the 
Messiah.  (Proposition)  Proved  by  two  signs  ;  (a.)  The  spirit- 
ual effusions  promised  in  Joel  and  such  like  places,  (b.)  The 
resurrection  of  the  sacrificed  Messiah.  Now  the  structure  of 
this  inspired  argument  is  ruinous  to  the  Prelatist  in  (at  least)  two 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  755 

points.  I.  V,  33.  The  spiritual  results  were  to  be  palpable  to 
the  senses  "  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear."  But  no  Prelatist 
pretends  that  the  "grace  in  holy  orders"  is  visible  and  audible. 
The  bestowal  was  one  of  visible,  sensible  "signs,"  the  very  one, 
and  the  only  one  relevant  to  the  demonstration.  2.  Verses  17, 
18.  The  spiritual  endowment  was  one  which  would  fall  on 
children  a.nd  females.  But  neither  of  these,  according  to  scrip- 
ture, can  receive  ordination.  So  that  the  prelatic  theory  is 
again  absolutely  excluded. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  Acts  vi :  3-8,  because  this  is  one  of  the 
places,  on  which  Prelacy  builds  chiefly.  It  has  been  proved  that 
Stephen's  and  Philip's  possession  of  the  idotaiw.  of  Miracles  was 
the  prerequisite,  not  the  consequence,  of  their  election  and 
ordination  to  diaconal  office.  But  in  i  Tim.  iii :  8,  to  end,  where 
this  office  is  expressly  defined,  we  hear  of  no  such  qualification 
or  function.  It  is  not  a  part  of  the  regular,  permanent  diaconal 
endowment.  But  the  Pentecostal  Church  in  Jerusalem  was 
adorned  with  many  instances  doubtless  among  its  laymen, 
women  and  children  (Acts  ii :  17,  18),  of  this  gift  of  "signs," 
as  well  as  among  its  ministers.  The  juncture  demanding  the 
separate  development  of  the  diaconal  office,  was  critical.  The 
spirit  of  faction  was  already  awake  between  the  Christians  of 
Hebrew  and  of  Hellenistic  blood.  The  duty  was  going  to  be  a 
nice  and  delicate  one.  Hence  the  Apostles'  advise  that  the 
men  first  chosen  for  it  be  not  only  commended  to  the  whole 
brotherhood  by  their  moral  character,  but  by  the  seal  of  this 
splendid  gift.  We  repeat :  this  endowment  was  the  prereq- 
uisite to  their  appointment,  not  the  consequence  of  it.  It  was, 
expressly  an  appointment  to  "serve  tables."  And  it  cannot  be 
argued  that  still  Stephen  and  Philip  had  received  this  ydncaiw. 
of  the  Spirit,  if  at  some  previous  time,  yet  by  some  ordaining 
act  to  a  lower  clerical  grade ;  because  the  diaconal  was  then 
the  lowest  grade  known  to  the  Church.  Thus  their  argument  is 
fatally  hedged  out  at  every  point. 

In  Acts  viii :  15,  etc.,  "Simon  saw  that  through  laying  on 
of  the  Apostles'  hands,  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given."  The 
endowment  was,  then,  a  visible  one.  But  according  to  Prela- 
tists,  the  grace  in  "  holy  orders  "  is  invisible  (so  invisible  indeed, 
to  the  sober  senses  of  Protestants,  as  to  be  wholly  imaginary !) 
Hence,  this  case  was  not  one  of  ordination  at  all,  or  of  apos- 
tolic succession.  So,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  on 
the  Gentiles,  in  Cornelius'  house  (Acts  x  :  46),  they  of  the  cir- 
cumcision "  heard  them  speak  with  tongues."  So,  when  Paul 
laid  hands  on  the  Ephesian  converts.  Acts  xix :  6,  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  on  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues  and  prophe- 
sied." Here  again  the  result  was  palpable.  And  that  this  was 
not  a  case  of  ordination  at  all,  is  proved  also  by  the  fact,  that 
the  endowment  was  given  to  all  the  little  company,  which  was  so 
small  that  it  included  but  twelve  males.     (Verse  7.) 


756  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

In  I  Cor.  Chaps,  xii.  to  xiv.,  the  discussion  of  this  ydmcFua. 
is  so  expUcit  and  full,  as  to  leave  nothing  to  be  desired.  The 
Apostle  speaks  of  it,  not  as  a  clerical  endowment,  but  a  popu- 
lar. He  expressly  says  that  its  object  is  to  be  a  sign  to  unbe- 
lievers. He  expressly  foretells  its  utter  vanishing  out  of  the 
Church  after  a  time,  which  our  experience  has  long  verified. 
But  ordination  and  the  ministry  are  permanent. 

Let  us  proceed,  now,  to  the  case  of  Timothy,  i  Tim.  iv : 
14;  and  2  Tim.  i:  6;  because  Prelatists  suppose  that  here  we 
have  the  clearest  instance  of  an  ordination  conferring  the  Holy 
Spirit.  But  let  us  see  :  If  these  references  are  only  to  Timo- 
thy's ordination,  then  it  was  a  presbyterial  ordination  ("by  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery"),  and  thus  the  pre- 
latic  scheme  is  ruined.  But  if  the  two  tests  do  not  describe  one 
and  the  same  transaction,  then  the  proof  is  gone  that  ordination 
by  prelate  imparted  the  Holy  Ghost  to  Timothy ;  because, 
if  two  transactions  are  alluded  to,  the  Holy  Ghost  may  have 
been  imparted  by  the  other.  And  2.  This  was  doubtless  the 
case.  The  "  presbytery "  ordained  Timothy  to  the  ministry, 
the  Holy  Spirit  having  moved  some  prophetic  person  to  advise 
it,  as  in  the  case  of  Barnabas  and  Saul.  Acts  xiii :  2.  But  the 
Apostle  ("who  was  also  a  presbyter."  See  i  Pet.  v:  i,)  acting 
by  his  apostolic  power,  added  some  ydpcau.a  of  "signs,"  to 
assist  his  "  beloved  son  in  the  ministry  "  in  convincing  unbe- 
lievers. This  is  our  solution  :  it  is  evinced  by  its  perfect  cor- 
respondence with  the  history  in  Acts  xvi.  On  this  solution, 
Timothy's  ydiitGfw.  was  derived,  not  from  his  ordination,  but 
from  a  distinct  action.  Let 'the  Prelatist  reject  this,  and  he 
inevitably  falls  back  into  the  doctrine  of  presbyterial  ordination 
abhorred  by  him.  3.  Timothy's  qualification  for  the  minis- 
try was  not  conferred  by  the  ordaining  act,  but  recognized  in 
it  as  pre-existing  in  him.  For  Paul  himself  ascribes  much  of 
this  qualification  to  the  instructions  of  his  mother  and  grand- 
mother, 2  Tim.  i:  5;  iii :  14-17;  and  the  whole  of  it,  instru- 
mentally,  to  the  inspired  Scriptures.  He  here  declares  that  by 
the  instructions  of  the  Scriptures,  the  minister  of  the  gospel  is 
"qualified  and  thoroughly  equipped,"  (fi'V^rfoc  i^eozcaid'^oz) 
for  his  work.  This  leaves  nothing  for  the  prelate's  hands  to  do? 
From  this  fatal  answer  the  Prelatist  has  no  escape,  except  to 
attempt  to  render  the  term  "  man  of  God,"  believer,  instead  of 
minister.  But  this  is  absurd,  being  totally  against  the  old  Tes- 
tament usage,  against  Paul's  usage,  who  has  always  his  own  dis- 
tinctive terms,  -'Mzoz,  o.yco:,  ddtlcnz,  for  believers  ;  and  against 
his  express  precedent  in  tlic  First  Epistle,  to  Tim.  vi  :  1 1 ;  where 
"  man  of  God  "  unquestionably  means  minister. 

We  have  thus  dealt  with  the  cases  on  w'hich  the  Prelatist 
chiefly  builds,  and  have  wrested  them  from  him.  The  student 
can  examine  for  himself  all  the  other  cases  of  yecpoi^toio.  in  the 
New   Testament,  in  the   same  way.      It  is  thus    evinced    that 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  75/ 

the  whole  basis  of  this  scheme,  of  Apostohc  Succession  and 
sacramental  grace,  is  a  blunder  and  a  confusion. 

Other  heads  of  argument  against  this  figment  might  be 
expanded ;  but  they  would  lead  us  aside  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  sacrament,  which  is  our  present  object.  There  can  be  no 
apostolic  succession,  because  there  could  not  be  an  Apostle  in 
the  earth,  since  the  death  of  John.  It  is  impossible  that  any 
one  but  a  cotemporary  of  Jesus,  personally  acquainted  with  His 
features,  and  personally  cognizant  of  His  resurrection,  should  be 
an  Apostle.  There  cannot  be  any  apostolic  succession,  again, 
because  there  is  nothing  to  succeed  to.  Every  Prelatist  who 
understands  himself  says,  the  thing  succeeded  to  is  priesthood. 
But  there  has  not  been  any  priesthood  on  earth,  and  could  not 
be  any,  for  eighteen  hundred  years.  The  figment  has  been 
refuted  again,  by  showing  that  Prelacy  has  no  continuous  suc- 
cession of  any  kind  in  its  ministry.  It  has  been  broken  fatally 
a  hundred  times,  by  heresy,  or  atheism,  or  impiety,  or  simony, 
or  anarchy.  Last :  the  whole  scheme,  is  refuted  by  the  sub- 
stantial identity  which  Scripture  asserts  between  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  new  dispensation,  and  the  old.  Under  the  old, 
redemption  was  certainly  not  applied  by  sacramental  grace. 
Rom.  ii :  26-29;  i^  •  ^^>  ^2.  But  the  argument  of  i  Cor.  ch. 
X.,  teaches  that  it  is  no  more  so  under  the  New  Testament. 
(The  student  may  find  these  views  expanded,  in  the  So2ithern 
Presbytcriaii  Revieiv,  January  1876  p.  i.) 

The  high  prelatic  scheme  of  sacramental  efficiency  is  essen- 
tially involved  in  that  of  the  apostolic  succession  and  the  "grace 
of  orders."  Hence,  the  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  cannot  be 
effectually  cleared  up  here,  without  an  understanding  of  the 
latter.  Its  discussion  verges  towards  another  department  of 
sacred  science,  that  of  Church  government.  But  the  introduc- 
tion of  this  argument  will  be  excused  on  account  of  the  insolu- 
ble connection. 


LECTURE  LXIII. 

BAPTISM. 


SYLLABUS. 
I.  Is  water  Baptism,   by  God's   appointment,    a  permanent   ordinance  in  the 
Church  ? 

Turrettin,  Log.  xix,  Qu.  12.     Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  6,  §  i,  2. 
2.'  What  are  the  signification  and  effects  of  Baptism  ?     Consider  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration.     Does  Baptism  represent,   as  Immersionists  say,   the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ? 

Turrettin,   Qu.  19,  g  I-16.     Armstrong  on  Baptism,  pt.  ii,  ch.  2,  pt.  i,  chs.  8, 
9.     Dick,  Lect.  89. 

3.  What  formulaiy  of  words  should  accompany  baptism  ?  and  what  their  sig- 
nification ?     Are  any  other  fomialities  admissible  ?  or  sponsors  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  17.     Dick.  Lects.  88,  89.     Knapp,  ^  139. 

4.  Was  John's  Baptism  the  Christian  sacrament  of  the  new  dispensation?  For 
what  signification  was  Christ  baptized  by  him.? 

Turrettin,   Qu.  16.     Armstrong,  pt,  i,   ch.  9.     Dick,  Lect.  88.     Calvin's  Inst, 
bk.  iv.  ch.  15,  ^  7,  18. 

5.  State  the  classic,  and  then  the  scriptural  meanings  ot  the  words  /JaTrrw  and 
/3a7rr/^(j  and  their  usage  when  appHed  in  the  Septuagint  and  New  Testament  to  Le- 
vitical  washings.  ■ 

Armstrong,  pt.  i,  chs.  3,  4,  5.     Rice  &  Campbell's  Debate,    Prop.  i.     Da'e's 
Classic  Bap.     Dale's  Judaic  Bap.     Carson  on  Bap. 

6.  Show  that  a  change  of  meaning  and  mode  takes  place  in  the  word  /3a7rrtCw, 
in  passing  from  a  secular  to  a  sacred  use. 

Armstrong,  pt  i,  ch.  I,  &c.     On  whole,  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  28. 

'npHE  general  remarks  made  concerning  the  sacraments,  and 
applied  to  baptism,   will  not  be  repeated.       The    earlier 

Socinians  disputed  the  oerpetual  obligation 
Pe'r^etulf   ^^^"""^    ^^  water-baptism,  as  the^  Quakers  now  do  of 

both  the  sacraments,  and  on  similar  grounds. 
They  plead  that  the  new  is  intended  to  be  a  spiritual  dispen- 
sation ;  that  salvation  is  always  in  the  New  Testament  condi- 
tioned essentially  on  the  state  of  heart:  that.  Paul  (i  Cor.  i: 
17)  says,  "Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel :""  and  that  the  water-baptism  administered  by  the  apostles 
was  only  a  temporary  badge  to  separate  the  Church  from  Jews 
and  Pagans  at  its  outset.  Quakers  suppose  that  the  only  sac- 
raments to  be  observed  in  our  day  are  those  of  the  heart,  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  feeding  on  Christ  by  faith. 
The  answers  are  :  That  the  Old  Testament,  with  its  numerous 
types  and  two  sacraments,  was  also  a  spiritual  dispensation, 
and  saving  benefits  were  then,  just  as  much  as  now,  conditioned 
on  the  state  of  the  heart;  that  the  commission  to  baptize  men 
was  evidently  co-extensive  with  that  to  disciple  and  teach 
them,  as  is  proved  by  the  accompanying  promise  of  grace ; 
that  the  commission  to  baptize  lasts  at  least  till  all  nations  are 
converted,  which  is  not  yet  accomplished  ;  that  it  was  after  the 
most  glorious  experiences  of  the  true  spiritual  baptism,  at  Pen- 
tecost, that  the  water-baptism  was  most  industriously  adminis- 
758 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  759 

tered;  and  that  Paul  only  expresses  the  inferior  importance  of 
baptising  to  preaching,  and  his  thankfulness  at  having  baptized 
only  three  persons. at  Corinth,  in  view  of  the  unpleasant  fact 
that  that  ChurCh  was  ranking  itself  in  parties  according  to  the 
ministers  who  introduced  them  to  membership. 

The  folly  and  falsehood  of  baptismal  regeneration  have 
been  already  pointed  out  in  the  former  lec- 
2.  Meaning  of  ^^j-q^  ^H  ^\^q  arguments  there  aimed  against 
the  opus  operatum  apply  here.  The  error 
most  probably  grew  as  superstition  increased  in  the  primitive 
Church,  out  of  the  ungarded  use  of  the  sacramental  language 
by  the  early  fathers,  whose  doctrine  on  this  point  was  sounder. 
We  know  that  baptism,  in  supposed  imitation  of  Titus  iii :  5, 
was  currently  called  regeneration  as  early  as  Justin  Martyr  and 
Irenaeus.  It  is  easy  to  see  how,  as  men's  ideas  of  sacred  sub- 
jects became  more  gross,  this  figurative  use  of  the  word  intro- 
duced the  real  error. 

According  to  the  Shorter  Catechism  (Qu.  94)  baptism 
"  doth  signify  and  seal  our  ingrafting  into  Christ  and  partaking 
of  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  our  engagements 
to  be  the  Lord's."  And  in  the  Confession,  chapter  28,  those 
benefits  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace  are  farther  explained  to  be 
remission  of  sins  and  regeneration.  Each  part  of  this  definition 
we  can  abundantly  substantiate  from  scripture.  See  Gal.  iii : 
27;  Rom.  vi:  5  ;  ■  Jno.  iii ;  5  ;  Titus  iii :  5  ;  Col.  ii:il,  12,  &c. ; 
Acts  11:38;  Mark  i:4;  Acts  xxii:i6,  &c. ;  Rom.  vi :  3,  4; 
I  Cor.  xii :  13  :  Matt,  xxviii :  19  ;  Rom.  vi :  1 1,  12. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  things  about  Baptism,  to  the 
attentive  reader  of  Scripture,  is  the  absence 
ish  Purlficati6ns!  ^^'  °^  ^  ^^^  explanations  of  its  meaning  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  at  the  same  time,  of  all 
appearance  of  surprise  at  its  novelty.  Not  so  with  the  other  sacra- 
ment although  that  was  a  continuation  of  the  familiar  Passover. 
These  things,  among  others,  convince  me  that  Baptism  was  no 
novelty  to  the  Jews,  either  in  its  form  or  signification.  It  was 
the  thing  symbolized  by  the  Hebrews'  purifications  y,a3aptafioi. 
The  idea  of  the  purification  included  both  cleansing  and  conse- 
cration^ and  the  formalities  represented  both  the  removal  of 
impurity  from  the  person,  in  order  that  it  might  be  adapted  to 
the  service  of  a  holy  God,  and  the  consequent  dedication  to 
Him.  Now,  the  main  idea  of  Baptism  is  purification  :  and  the 
element  applied,  the  detergent  element  of  nature,  symbolizes 
the  two-fold  application  of  Christ's  satisfaction  (called  His  blood) 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  cleansing  from  guilt  and  depravity,  and 
thus  also  consecrating  the  cleansed  person  to  the  service  of  a 
holy  God.  Here  then,  we  have  involved  the  ideas  of  regenera- 
tion and  remission,  and  also  of  engrafting  and  covenanting  into 
Christ's  service.  This  view  will  be  farther  susbtstantiated  in 
treating  the  words  ^o-zca[j.oz  &c. 


760  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Now  the  Immersionists,  (for  what  purpose  we  shall  see), 
Does  Baptism  Com-  ^"^^v^  departed  from  the  uniform  faith  of 
memorate  Christ's  Bur-  Christendom,  on  this  point:  and  while  they 
ial  and  Resurrection  ?  do  not  wholly  discard  the  purification,  make 
baptism  primarily  symbolical  of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrection. 
They  teach  that,  as  the  supper  commemorates  His  death,  so 
baptism  commemorates  His  burial  and  rising  again.  True,  the 
believer,  in  commemorating  His  death  in  the  supper,  receives 
also  a  symbol  of  the  benefits  purchased  for  us  therein.  So,  in 
commemorating  His  burial  and  resurrection,  there  is  a  symbol- 
izing of  our  burial  to  sin,  and  living  again  unto  holiness.  But 
the  main  meaning  is,  to  set  forth  Christ's  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion. Only  three  texts  can  be  quoted  for  this  view.  Rom.  vi : 
3-5  ;  Col.  ii :  12,  and  i  Cor.  xv :  29,  and  especially  the  first. 

Now  our  first  objection  to  this  view  is  its  lack  of  all  Bible 
support.  He  would  be  a  hardy  man,  who 
Scripture  Proof  °  would  base  any  theory  on  the  exposition  of 
a  passage  so  obscure  as  i  Cor.  xv :  29.  The 
most  probable  explanation  is,  that  the  Apostle  here  refers  to  the 
Levitical  rule  of  Numb,  xix  :  14-19.  Were  there  no  resurrec- 
tion, a  corpse  would  be  like  any  other  clod ;  and  there  would 
be  no  reason  for  treating  it  as  a  symbol  of  moral  defilement,  or 
for  bestowing  on  it,  so  religiously,  the  rites  of  sepulture.  But  this 
exposition  presents  not  a  particle  of  reason  for  regarding  Chris- 
tian baptism  as  a  commemoration  of  Christ's  b.urial.  The  other 
two  passages  are  substantially  identical :  and,  under  the  figure 
of  a  death  and  rising  again,  they  obviously  represent  a  regen- 
eration. Compare  especially  Col.  ii:ii,  12;  Rom.  vi:4.  So 
likewise  the  figures  of  circumcision,  planting,  and  crucifixion, 
all  represent  the  same,  regeneration.  This  the  immersionist 
himself  cannot  deny.  The  baptism  here  spoken  of  is,  then,  not 
directly  a  water  baptism  at  all :  but  the  spiritual  baptism 
thereby  represented.  Col.  -ii :  1 1.  It  is  the  circumcision  "made 
without  hands."  Rom.  vi :  3,  4.  It  is  a  baptism  not  into  water, 
but  into  death,  i.  e.,  a  death  to  carnality.  Therefore  it  is  clear 
the  symbolism  here  points  to  the  grace  of  regeneration,  and  not 
to  any  supposed  grace  in  Christ's  burial.  His  burial  and  res- 
urrection are  themselves  used  here  as  symbols,  to  represent- 
regeneration.  As  justly  might  the  immersionist  say  that  bap- 
tism commemorates  a  crucifi.xion,  a  planting,  a  building,  a 
change  of  a  stone  into  flesh,  a  putting  off  dirty  garments  ; 
because  these  are  all  Scripture  figures  of  regeneration,  of  which 
baptism  is  a  figure.  Nor  is  there  in  these  famous  passages  any 
reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  because  first  the  Apostle's 
scope  in  Rom.  vi,  forbids  it :  and  second,  the  same  mode  of 
interpretation  would  compel  us  to  find  an  analogy  in  the 
mode  of  baptism,  to  a  planting  and  a  crucifixion.  See  Scott  in 
loco. 

But   second :  by  making  baptism  the  commemoration  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  761 

Christ's  burial,   and  resurrection,   the    sacra- 
No   Roper    Sacra-    ^igntal  analogy  (as  well    as  the  warrant)  is 
men  a      na  ogy.  totally  lost.     This  analogy  is  not  in  the  ele- 

ment to  the  grace ;  for  in  that  aspect,  there  can  be  no  resem- 
blance. Water  is  not  like  a  tomb,  nor  like  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor 
like  Christ's  atoning  righteousness.  Nor  is  bread  like  a  man's 
body,  nor  wine  like  his  blood.  The  selection  of  the  sacramental 
element  is  not  founded  on  a  resemblance,  but  on  an  analogy. 
Distinguish.  The  bread  and  wine  are  elements,  not  because 
they  are  like  a  body  and  blood,  in  their  qualities  :  but  because 
there  is  a  parallel  in  their  uses,  to  nourish  and  cheer.  So  the 
water  is  an  element  of  a  sacrament,  because  there  is  a  paraUel 
in  its  uses,  to  the  thing  symbolized.  The  use  of  water  is  to 
cleanse.  Where  now  is  any  analogy  to  Christ's  burial  ?  Nor 
is  there  even  a  resemblance  in  the  action,  not  even  when  the 
immersionist's  mode  is  granted.  Water  is  not  like  a  Hebrew 
tomb.  The  temporary  demission  of  a  man  into  the  former,  to 
be  instantly  raised  out  of  it,  is  not  like  a  burial. 

Third  :  If  we  may  judge  by  the  two  sacraments  of  the  old 
dispensation,  and  by  the  supper,  sacraments 
ViS"'^''  ^"""'^  ^°^  (always  few)  are  only  adopted  by  God  to  be 
commemorative  of  the  most  cardinal  transac- 
tions of  redemption.  Christ's  burial  was  not  such.  Christ's 
burial  is  nowhere  proposed  to  us  as  an  essential  object  of  faith. 
His  death  and  the  Spirit's  work  are.  His  death  and  resurrec- 
tion are ;  the  former  already  commemorated  in  the  other  sacra- 
ment. And  besides ;  it  would  seem  strange  that  the  essential 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  commemorated  by  no  sacra- 
ment, while  that  of  Christ  is  commemorated  by  two  !  In  the 
old  dispensation  the  altar  and  the  laver  stood  side  by  side.  And 
here  would  be  a  two-fold  covenant,  with  two  seals  to  one  of  its 
promises,  and  none  to  the  other  ! 

And  last :  The  Immersionist  is  involved  by  his  theory  in 
intense  confusions.  In  the  gospel  history,  Christ's  death  pre- 
ceded His  burial  and  resurrection  :  so  the  commemoration  of 
the  death  ought  to  precede.  But  the  Immersionist  makes  it 
follow,  with  peculiar  rigidity.  Again  :  the  Supper  was  only 
practised  either  when  the  death  was  already  accomplished,  or 
immediately  at  hand ;  so  that  its  commemorative  intent  was  at 
once  obvious.  But  the  baptism  was  instituted  long  before  the 
burial.  Did  it  then  point  forward  to  it  ?  Are  sacraments  types  ? 
And  this  difficulty  presses  peculiarly  on  the  Immersionist,  who 
makes  John's  baptism  identical  with  Christian.  What  then  did 
John's  baptism  signify  to  Jews,  before  Christ  was  either  dead  or 
buried,  and  before  these  events  were  foreknown  by  them  ? 

In   Matt,   xxviii  :   19  the    formulary  of   words  to   be   em- 
ployed is  given   by  Christ  explicitly,    i::  rb 
Nam^eT'''"' '"  ^^'"''    <^'^^/''''  &c.,  and  this  preposition  is  retained  in 
every  case  but  one.     Had  our  Saviour   said 


762  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

that  baptism  should  be  ev  zcu  ovoimzc  (dative),  &c.,  His  meaning 
would  have  appeared  to  be  that  the  rite  was  applied  by  the 
authority  of  that  name,  i.  e.,  hebraice,  of  that  person.  The  one 
case  in  which  this  formulary  occurs  (Acts  x  :  48)  is  probably 
to  be  explained  in  this  way  ;  but  the  uniform  observance  of  the 
other  formulary,  in  all  the  other  cases  (especially  see  i  Cor. 
i  :  13  and  x  :  2),  indicates  clearly  that  the  meaning  of  the  rite 
is,  that  it  purifies  and  dedicates  us  unto  the  Trinity,  bringing  us 
into  a  covenant  relation  to  Him.  Here  we  see  an  additional 
argument  for  the  definition  given  in  §  i,  of  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tism, and  against  the  Immersionist  idea. 

Cases  are  notunfrequent(e.  g.,  in  Acts  viii :  16;  x  :48  ;  xix  :  5) 
in  which  no  name  is  mentioned  but  that  of  Christ.  But  I  think 
we  are  by  no  means  to  infer  hence. that  the  apostles  ever  omit- 
ted any  of  the  formulary  enjoined  by  Christ.  Jews  would  have 
no  objection  to  a  baptism  to  God  the  Father.  (John's  was 
such,  and  exceedingly  popular).  They  were  used  to  them. 
But  Christ  Jesus  was  the  stumbling-block ;  and  hence  when  the 
historian  would  indicate  that  a  Hebrew  had  made  a  thorough 
submission  to  the  new  dispensation,  he  would  think  it  enough 
to  say  that  he  had  assumed  Christ's  name.  The  rest  was  then 
easy  to  believe  and  was  therefore  left  to  be  inferred. 

The  Church  of  Rome  accompanied  baptism  with  a  number 
.  ,     of  superstitious  rites,  of  which   she  still  re- 

buperstitious    Ad-,-         .\  .  1^1        r-i  1        r  t^       1       j 

juncts.  tarns  the  most,  and  the  Church  of  tngland^ 

a  part.  They  were,  blessing  the  water  in  the 
font,  exorcism,  renouncing  the  Devil,  anointing  in  the  form  of 
a  cross,  anointing  the  eye-lids  and  ears  with  spittle,  breathing 
on  the  candidate,  washing  the  whole  body  in  puns  natiiralibus, 
the  baptism  proper,  tasting  salt  and  honey,  putting  on  the 
white  robe,  or  at  least,  taking  hold  of  a  white  cloth,  and  an  im- 
position of  hands.  The  last,  now  separated  from  baptism,  con- 
stitutes the  sacrament  of  confirmation.  We  repudiate  all  these, 
for  two  reasons  :  that  they  are  unauthorized  by  Scripture,  and, 
worse  than  this,  that  their  use  is  suggestive  of  positive  error 
and  superstition. 

The  use  of  sponsors,  who  are  now  always  other  than  the 
proper  parents  (when  any  sponsors  are  used), 
in  the  Episcopal  and  Romish  Churches,  has 
grown  from  gradual  additions.  In  the  early  Church  the  spon- 
sors were  always  the  natural  parents  of  the  infant,  except  in 
cases  of  orphanage  and  slavery :  and  then  they  were  either  the 
master,  or  some  deacon  or  deaconess.  (See  Bingham,  p,  523, 
&c.)  When  an  adult  was  in  extremis,  and  even  speechless, 
or  maniacal,  or  insensible,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  he  had 
desired  baptism,  he  w^as  permitted  to  receive  it,  and  some  one 
stood  sponsor  for  him.  If  he  recovered,  this  sponsor  was  ex- 
pected to  watch  over  his  religious  life  and  instruction.  And  in 
the  case  of  Catechumens,  the  sponsor  was  at  first  some  clergy- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  765 

man  or  deaconess,  who  undertook  his  rehgious  guidance.  It 
was  a  universal  rule  that  no  one  was  allowed  to  be  sponsor  un- 
less he  undertook  this  bona  fide.  How  perverted  is  this  usage 
now !  Our  great  objection  to  the  appearance  of  any  one  but 
the  natural  parents,  where  there  are  any,  or  in  other  cases,  of 
him  who  is  in  loco  parentis,  as  sponsors,  is  this :  that  no  other 
human  has  the  right  to  dedicate  the  child,  and  no  other  has  the 
opportunity  and  authority  to  train  it  for  God.  To  take  these 
vows  in  any  other  sense  is  mockery. 

The  Reformers  strenuously  identify  John's  baptism  ■  with 
f  T  T,  '  '^^^  Christian,  arguing  that  his  mission  was  a 
Baptism. "'^^  °  Jo  ns  ^^^^  ^^  dawn  of  the  new  dispensation,  that  it 
was  the  baptism  of  repentance,  an  evangeli- 
cal grace,  and  that  it  is  also  stated  (Luke  iii :  3)  to  be  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  But  later  Calvinists  hold,  against  them  and 
the  Immersionists,  that  it  was  a  baptism  for  a  different  purpose, 
and  therefore  not  the  same  sacramentally,  however  it  may  have 
resembled  as  to  mode, .  that  of  the  Christian  Church.  Their 
reasons  are,  that  it  was  not  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  and  did  not  bring  the  parties  into  covenant  with  Christ. 
2nd.  It  was  not  the  initiatory  rite  into  the  Church,  and  did  not 
signify  our  ingrafting  into  Christ,  for  the  old  dispensation  still 
subsisted,  and  those  who  received  the  rite  were  already  in  the 
Church  of  that  dispensation,  whereas  Christ's  was  not  yet 
opened,  and  therefore  could  not  receive  formal  adherents.  But, 
3d,  Paul  seems  clearly  (Acts  xix  :  5)  to  have  repeated  Christian 
baptism  on  those  who  already  had  John's.  Calvin  and  Turret- 
tin  indeed  evade  this  fact  by  making  verse  5  the  words  of 
Paul  (not  of  Luke),  reciting  the  fact  that  these  brethren  had 
already  (when  they  heard  John)  received  baptism.  But  this 
gloss  is  proved  erroneous,  not  only  by  the  whole  drift  of  the 
passage  (why  had  they  not  received  charisms  ?),  by  the  force  of 
the  p.zv  and  ^s,  but  above  all  by  this  :  that  if  this  verse  5  means 
John's  baptism,  then  John  baptized  in  the  name  of  Jesus.  But 
see  Jno.  i:  33  ;  Matt,  xi  :  3.  John's  baptism  was  therefore  not 
the  sacrament  of  the  new  dispensation,  but  one  of  those  puri- 
fications, preparing  the  way  of  the  Messiah  about  to  come, 
with  which,  we  believe,  the  Jewish  mind  was  familiar. 

The    interesting  question    arises :    With  what    intent  and 

meaning  did  Christ  submit  to  it?     He  could 
Intent    of    Christ's  i.i.j  jj  ••  \\r 

Baptism.  ^o^  repent,  and  needed   no  remission.     We 

think  it  clear  He  could  not  have  taken  it  in 
these  senses.  Says  Turrettin  :  He  took  it  vicariously,  doing 
for  His  people,  all  that  any  one  of  them  owed,  to  fulfill  the  law 
in  their  stead  ;  and  He  refers,  for  support,  to  the  fact  that  He 
punctually  conformed  to  all  the  Levitical  ritual, — was  circum- 
cised, attended  sacrifices,  &c.  But  the  cases  are  not  parallel. 
Christ  as  a  Jew,  (according  to  His  humanity),  would  properly 
render  obedience  to   all   the  rules  of  the    dispensation  under 


764  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

which  He  came  vicariously ;  but  it  is  not  therefore  proper  that 
He  should  comply  with  the  rules  of  a  dispensation  to  be  wholly 
founded  on  Him  as  Mediator,  and  which  rules  were  all  legis- 
lated by  Him.  This  for  those,  who  assert  that  John's  baptism 
was  the  Christian  Sacrament.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Christ 
partook  of  His  other  sacrament.  See  Luke  xxii  :  17.  And 
while  His  vicarious  attitude  would  make  a  ceremonial  purifica- 
tion from  guilt  appropriate,  it  w^ould  not  make  a  rite  significant 
of  repentance  appropriate.  Christ  did  not  repent  for  imputed 
guilt,  which  did  not  stain  His  character.  Nor  would  the  other 
part  of  the  signification  apply  to  Him :  for  this  imputed  guilt 
was  not  pardoned  to  Him  :  He  paid  the  debt  to  the  full. 

There    seems   then,    to   be    no    explanation ;   except   that 

Christ's  baptism  was  His  priestly  inaugura- 
cration  to  pJiesthooT"    ^ion.     John,  himself  an  Aaronic  priest,  might 

naturally  administer  it.  His  age  confirms  it ; 
compare  Luke  iii  :  23,  with  Numb,  iv  :  3.  A  purification  by 
water  was  a  part  of  the  original  consecration  of  the  Aaronic 
family.  See  Levit.  viii  :  6;  or  better,  Exod.  xxx  :  17-21,  &c. 
The  unction  Christ  received  immediately  after,  by  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  last,  John's  language  confirms  it, 
together  with  the  immediate  opening  of  Christ's  official  work. 
We  now  approach  the  vexed  question  of  the  mode  of  bap- 
Real  Ouestion  as  ^i^m.  The  difference  between  us  and  immer- 
to  Mode.  Neither  sionists  is  only  this:  whether  the  entire 
Etymology  nor  Secular  immersion  of  the  body  in  water  is  essential 
Use  Defines  it.  ,  t  1  1         .  •  -r^  1      -^  t 

to  valid  baptism,  l^orwe  admit  any  applica- 
tion of  water,  by  an  ordained  ministry,  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity,  to  be  valid  baptism.  The  question  concerning  the 
mode  is  of  course  one  of  meaning  and  usage  of  the  words 
descriptive  of  the  ordinance.  But  this  preliminary  question 
arises :  of  what  usage  ?  that  of  the  classic,  or  of  Hellenistic 
Greek?  We  answer,  chiefly  the  latter;  for  the  obvious  reason 
that  this  was  the  idiom  to  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment were  accustomed,  especially  when  speaking  Greek  on  a 
sacred  subject.  And  this,  enlightened  immersionists  scarcely 
dispute.  Another  preliminary  question  arises :  should  it  be 
found  that  the  usage  of  the  words  (ia-zCo),  &c.,  when  applied  to 
common  and  secular  washings,  gives  them  one  uniform  mean- 
ing, would  that  be  evidence  enough  that  its  meaning  was  pre- 
cisely the  same,  in  passing  to  a  sacred  ritual,  and  assuming  a 
technical,  sacred  sense  ?  I  reply,  by  no  means.  There  is 
scarcely  a  word,  which  has  been  borrowed  from  secular  into 
sacred  language,  which  does  not  undergo  a  necessary  modifica- 
tion of  meaning.  Is  iy.ylr^m(i.  the  same  word  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  it  is  in  common  secular  Greek  ?  riota^i'jztoo:;  means  an 
elderly  person,  an  embassador,  a  magistrate.  Is  this  the  pre- 
cise meaning  of  the  Church  presbyter  of  the  New  Testament? 
He  might  be  a  young  man.     Above  all  is  this  change  marked 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  765 

in  the  word  for  the  other  sacrament,  de2-vou.  This  word  in  sec- 
ular, social  use,  whether  in  or  out  of  Scripture,  means  the  even- 
ing meal ;  and  usually  a  full  one,  often  a  banquet,  in  which  the 
bodily  appetite  was  liberally  fed.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  usu- 
ally not  in  the  evening ;  it  is  not  a  meal ;  and  by  its  design  has 
no  reference  to  satisfying  the  stomach,  or  nourishing  the  body. 
See  I  Cor.  xi.  Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  adopt  a  secular  and 
known  word,  as  the  name  c  f  this  peculiar  institution,  a  Chris- 
tian Sacrament,  without,  in  the  very  act  of  adopting  it,  super- 
inducing upon  it  some  shade  of  meaning  different  from  its  sec- 
ular. Even  if  the  favorite  word  of  the  Immersionists,  immer- 
sion, were  adopted,  as  the  established  name  in  English,  of  the 
sacrament ;  it  would  ipso  facto  receive  an  immediate  modifica- 
tion of  meaning  as  a  sacramental  word.  Not  any  immersion 
whatever  would  constitute  a  sacrament.  So  that  this  very  spe- 
cific word  would  then  require  some  specification.  Thus  we  see 
that  the  assertion  of  the  Immersionist,  that  f^a~-i^io  is  a  purely 
specific  word,  and,  as  a  name  of  a  sacrament,  admits  of  no 
definition  as  to  mode,  would  be  untrue,  even  if  it  were  per- 
fectly specific  in  its  common  secular  meaning,  both  in  and  out 
of  Scripture.  We  might  grant,  then,  that  (^aTtrc^w,  whenever 
non-ritual,  is  nothing  but  plunge,  dip  under,  and  still  sustain 
our  cause. 

But  we  grant  no  such  thing.     Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that 
6.  Immersionist  Pos-    the  thing  the  Immersionist  must  prove  is  no 
tulate  as  to  Usage  of   less  than  this :  that  ^aTizi^w,  &c.,  never  can 
^^°'''^^^-  mean,  in  secular  uses,  whether  in  or  out  of 

the  Scriptures,  anything  but  dip  under,  plunge;  for  nothing  less 
will  prove  that  nothing  but  dipping  wholly  under  is  valid  bap- 
tism. If  the  words  mean  frequently  plunging,  but  sometimes 
wetting  or  washing  without  plunging,  their  cause  is  lost.  For 
then  it  is  no  longer  absolutely  specific  of  mode.  Let  us  then 
examine  first  the  non-ritual  or  secular  usage  of  the  words,  both 
in  Hellenistic  (Sept.  Josephus)  Greek,  and  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  freely  admit  that  j?d7TTw  very  often  means  to  dip, 
and  [^a--i^co  still  more  often,  nay,  usually,  but  not  exclusively. 

And  first,  the  trick  of  Carson  is  to  be  exposed,  by  which 
he  endeavors  to  evade  the  examination  of 
be'^Examrn°ed.^""™ '"  the  shorter  form,  t^d7:zco,  on  the  plea  that  ,9«-- 
ri^to  and  its  derivatives  are  the  only  ones  ever 
used  in  relation  to  the  sacrament  of  baptism.  True ;  but  by 
what  process  shall  we  more  properly  discover  the  meaning  of 
l3a-Tc^(o  than  by  going  to  that  of  its  root,  f-^d-'o),  from  which  it  is 
formed  by  the  simple  addition  of  iC^o,  meaning  verbal  activity, 
(the  making  of  anything  to  be  j^aTrr).  Well,  we  find  the  lexi- 
cons all  defining  f^d-rco,  dip,  wash,  stain.  Suidas,  tjJj'jco,  to 
wash  clothes.  These  definitions  are  sustained  by  the  well 
known  case,  from  the  classics,  of  Homer's  lake,  /9£;9«///7.ivov„ 
tinged  with  the  blood  of  a  dying  mouse,  which  Carson  himself 


766  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

gives  up.  But  among  the  instances  from  Hellenistic  Greek, 
the  more  important  to  our  purpose,  consult  the  following : 
Rev.  xix  :  13,  a  vesture  stained  with  blood,  ^ier'jo.ijLne'^oi^;  Luke 
xvi  :  24 ;  Ex.  xii  :  22 ;  i  Sam.  xiv  :  27 ;  Levit.  iv  :  6,  7 ;  Dan.  iv: 
33.  So  there  are  cases  of  the  secular  use  of  the  word  fia-zi^co, 
where  immersion  is  not  expressed.  See  the  lexicons  quoted 
by  Drs.  Owen  and  Rice,  in  which  it  is  defined,  not  only  to 
immerse,  but  also  to  wash,  substantiated  by  the  cases  of  "the 
blister  baptized  with  breast  milk,"  in  classic  Greek,  and  of  the 
altar,  wood  and  victim  of  Elijah  baptized  by  pouring  on  water 
in  Origen.  Hence,  the  common  and  secular  usage  is  not 
uniformly  in  favor  of  dipping. 

But  if  it  were,  the  question  would    still  be  an   open   one  ; 
for  it  may  well  be,  that  when  transferred  to 

Ba-TiCu  not  Always         t„-  v      1    i-i  j        -n  j 

J-)-  ■'      religious  ritual,  the  word  will  undergo  some 

such  modification  as  we  saw  uniformly  occurs 
in  all  other  words  transferred  thus.  We  proceed,  then,  one 
step  nearer,  and  examine  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint  and  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  religious  rituals, 
other  than  the  Christian  sacrament  itself;  that  is,  to  Jewish  puri- 
fications. And  here  we  find  that  the  specific  idea  of  the  Jewish 
religious  baptism  was  not  dipping,  but  an  act  symbolical  of 
purification,  of  which  the  actual  mode  was,  in  most  cases, 
by  affusion.  In  2  Kings  v:  14;  Naaman  baptized  himself 
{tfio-ziZo-o)  seven  times  in  the  Jordan.  This  may  have  been 
dipping,  but  taking  into  account  the  Jewish  mode  of  purifica- 
tion, was  more  probably  by  affusion.  Eccl.  xxxiv :  25;  the 
Septuagint  says  :  "  He  that  baptizeth  himself  [fia-ri^eruc)  after 
he  toucheth  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch  it  again,  what  availeth 
his  washings  ?"  How  this  baptism  was  performed,  the  reader 
may  see  in  Numb,  xxxi :  19,  24,  and  xix  :  13-20.  In  Judith 
xii :  7,  this  chaste  maiden  is  said  to  have  baptized  herself  at  a 
fountain  of  water  by  a  vast  camp  !  In  Josephus  Antiq.  Bk.  4, 
ch.  iv.,  the  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  used  in  purifying  are  said  to 
be  baptized  in  spring  water.  ^ 

In  the  New  Testament  there  are  four  instances  where  the 
New  Testament  Use    Jewish  ritual  purifications  are  described  by 
of  the  Verb  Not  Al-    the  term  baptize;  and  in  all  four  cases  it  was 
ways  Dip.  undoubtedly    by   affusion.       Mark    vii :     4 : 

Luke  xi :  38;  John  ii :  6;  Heb.  ix:  10;  vi :  2.  (The  last  may 
possibly  be  Christian  baptism,  though  its  use  in  the  plural 
would  rather  show  that  it  included  the  Jewish.)  Now  that  all 
these  purifications  called  here  fianTiaiJioi  and  xa&afnajioi  were 
by  affusion,  we  learn,  i.  From  the  Levitical  law,  which 
describes  various  washings  and  sprinklings,  but  not  one  immer- 
sion of  a  man's  person  for  purification.  2.  From  well  known 
antique  habits  still  prevalent  in  the  East,  which  limited  the 
, washings  to  the  hands  and  feet,  and  performed  them  by  affu- 
sion.    Compare  2  Kings  iii :   11  ;    Exod.  xxx :  21.     3.     From 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  ']6y 

comparison  of  the  two  passages,  Mark  vii :  4,  and  Luke  xi  :  38  ; 
with  Jno.  ii :  6.  These  water  pots  were  too  narrow  at  the 
mouth,  and  too  small  (holding  about  two  bushels)  to  receive  a 
person's  body,  and  were  such  as  were  borne  on  the  shoulders  of 
female  servants.  4.  From  the  great  improbability  that  Jews 
would  usually  immerse  all  over  so  often,  or  that  they  could. 
5.  From  the  fact  that  they  are  declared  to  have  practised,  not 
only  these  baptisms  of  their  persons,  but  of  their  utensils  and 
massive  couches.  Numb,  xix:  17,  18.  It  is  simply  prepos- 
terous that  these  should  have  been  immersed  as  often  as  cere- 
monially defiled.  Last,  the  Levitical  law,  which  these  Jews 
professed  to  observe  with  such  strictness,  rendered  an  immer- 
sion impossible  anywhere  but  in  a  deep  running  stream,  or  liv- 
ing pit  of  a  fountain.  For  if  anything  ceremonially  unclean 
went  into  a  vessel  of  standing  water,  no  matter  whether  large 
or  small,  the  water  was  thereby  defiled,  and  the  vessel  and  all 
other  water  put  into  that  vessel,  and  all  persons  who  got  into 
it.     See  Levit.  xi  :  32  to  36. 

It  is  true  that  Immersionists  pretend  to  quote  Talmudists 
(of  whom  I,  and  probably  they,  know  nothing),  saying  that 
these  purifications  were  by  immersion ;  and  that  Solomon's 
"sea"  was  for  the  priests  to  swim  in.  But  the  Talmud  is  700 
years  A.  D.,  and  excessively  absurd. 

Now,  if  the  religious  baptisms  of  the  Jews  were  not  by 
dipping,  but  by  affusion;  if  their  specific  idea 
was  that  of  religious  purification,  and  not  dip- 
ping; and  if  Christian  baptism  is  borrowed  from  the  Jewish, 
and  called  by  the  same  name,  without  explanation,  can  any  one 
believe  that  dipping  is  its  specific  and  essential  form  ?  Immer- 
sionists acknowledge  the  justice  of  our  inference,  by  attempting 
to  dispute  all  the  premises.     Hard  task !     • 


LECTURE  LXIV. 

BAPTISM.— Continued. 


SYLLABUS. 

7.  What  would  most  probably  be  the  mode  of  baptism  adopted  for  a  universal 
religion? 

Ridgley.  Qu.  166.  . 

8.  What  mode  is  most  appropriate  to  the  symbohcal  meaning  of  baptism  ? 
Consult  Is.  Iii:l5;   compare   Matt,    iii :   11;  Acts   i  :  5  ;    ii  :  2,  4;  ii:  15-18; 
ii  •'  33  j  X  :  44-48  ;  xi  :  16,   17.      Alexander  on  Isaiah.     Armstrong  on  Bap., 
pt.  i,  ch.  7.     Review  of  Theodosia  Ernest. 

9.  What  mode  appears  most  probable  from  the  analogy  of  the  figurative  and 
spiritual  baptisms  of  Matt,  xx :  20-23  ;  Mark  x :  38,  39  ;  Luke  xii  :  50  ;  i  Cor.  x  :  2  ; 
I  Pet.  iii :  21  ;  i  Cor.  xii  :  13  ;  Gal.  iii :  27  ;  Eph.  iv  :  5  ;  Rom.  vi  :  3 ;  Col.  ii :  12. 

See  Armstrong  on  Bap.  pt.  i,  chs.  6,  8.     Commentaries  on  Scriptures  cited. 

10.  Argue  the  mode  from  Jno.  3  :  25,  26. 
Armstrong  on  Bap.  pt.  i,  ch.  2.  9. 

11.  Discuss  the  probable  mode  observed  in  John's  baptisms  in  Jordan  and  at 
^non,  the  Eunuch's,  Paul's,  the  three  thousand's  at  Pentecost,  Cornelius,'  the  Philip-- 
plan  jailor's. 

Armstrong,  pt.  ii,  chs.  3,  4.  Dr.  Leonard  Woods  on  Baptism.  Taylor's 
Apostolic  Baptism.  Robinson's  Reasearches  in  Palestine.  Commentaries. 
Review  of  Theodosia  Ernest. 

12.  What  would  be  the  ecclesiasticsl  results  of  the  Immersionist  dogma  ? 
Review  of  Theodosia  Ernest. 

13.  What  was  the  customary  mode  of  baptism  in  the  early  Church,  subsequent 
to  the  apostles  ? 

Bingham's ',"  Origines  Sacrse,"  Art.  "  Bapt."  Taylor's  Apostolic  Baptism. 
Church  Histories.  Review  of  Theodosia  Ernest,  See  on  whole.  Rice  and 
Campbell's  Debate.     Fairchild  on  Baptism.     Beecheron  Baptism. 

A     CONSIDERATION    of  some    probable    weight    may  be 

drawn  from  the  fact  that   Christianity  is  intended  to  be  a 

universal    religion.       Remember   that    it    is- 

7   Dipping  Impracti-    characterized  by  fewness   and  simplicity  of 
cable  Sometmies.  .  .      .    ■^       ,  .   .        .      .  ^        y      , 

rites,  that  it   is   rather  spiritual   than  ntual, 

that  its  purpose  was  to  make  those  rites  the  reverse  of  burden- 
some, and  that  the  elements  of  the  other  sacraments  were 
chosen  from  articles  common,  cheap,  and  near  at  hand.  Now, 
in  many  extensive  countries,  water  is  too  scarce  to  make  it  con- 
venient to  accumulate  enough  for  an  immersion ;  in  other 
regions  all  waters  are  frozen  over  during  half  the  year.  la 
many  cases  infirmity  of  body  renders  immersion  highly  incon- 
venient and  even  dangerous.  It  seems  not  very  probable  that, 
under  these  circumstances,  a  dispensation  so  little  formalistic  as 
the  Christian,  would  have  made  immersion  essential  to  the 
validity  of  baptism,  for  a  universal  Church,  amidst  all  cHmes 
and  habits. 

But  we  derive  an  argument  of  far  more  importance,  from 

the  obviously  correct  analogy  between  the 
is  Always^ Shed^ForUr    ^^^  °^  affusion   and   the  graces  signified  and 

sealed  in  baptism.     It  is  this  which  Immer- 
768 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  769 

sionists  seek  to  evade  when  they  endeavor,  contrary  to  Scrip- 
ture, to  make  baptism  signify  and  commemorate  primarily 
Christ's  burial  and  resurrection.  (Hence  the  importance  of 
refuting  that  dream).  The  student  will  remember,  that  the 
selection  of  the  element  is  founded,  not  upon  the  resemblance 
of  its  nature  (for  of  this  there  can  be  none,  between  the  mate- 
rial and  spiritual),  but  on  the  analogy  of  its  use  to  the  graces 
symbolized.  Water  is  the  detergent  element  of  nature.  The 
great  meaning  of  baptism  is  our  cleansing  from  guilt  by  expi- 
ation (blood),  and  our  cleansing  from  the  depravity  of  heart,  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Now,  in  all  Bible  language,  without  a  single 
exception,  expiation  is  symbolized  as  sprinkled,  or  afifused,  or 
put  on;  and  the  renewing  Spirit,  as  descending,  or  poured,  or 
falling.  See  all  the  Jewish  usages,  and  the  whole  tenour  of  the 
promises.  Levit.  xiv  :  7,  51  ;  xvi  :  14  ;  Numb,  viii  :  7  ;  xix  : 
18  ;  Heb.  ix  :  19-22,  especially  last  verse;  ix  :  14  ;  x  :  22  ; 
Levit  vii  ;  14  ;  Exod.  xxix  :  16,  21,  &c. ;  Ps.  xlv  :  2  ;  Is.  xliv  : 
3  ;  Ps.  Ixxii  :  6  ;  Is.  xxxii  :  15  ;  Joel  ii  :  28,  29,  quoted  in 
Acts  ii. 

Nor  is  the   force  of  thig  analogy  a  mere  surmise  of  ours. 

See  Is.  lii  :  15,  where  it  is  declared  that  the 
TeSn?  Instlnces'?^'^    Redeemer,  by  His  mediatorial,  and  especially 

His  suffering  work,  "shall  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions." The  immediate  reference  here  doubtless  is  not  to  water 
baptism,  but  to  that  which  it  signifies.  But  when  God  chooses 
in  "His  own  Word  to  call  those  baptismal  graces  a  sprinkling, 
surely  it  gives  no  little  authority  to  the  belief  that  water  bap- 
tism is  by  sprinkling  !  Immersionists  feel  this  so  acutely  that 
they  have  even  availed  themselves  of  the  infidel  glosses  of  the 
German  Rationalists,  who  to  get  rid  of  the  Messianic  features  of 
this  glorious  prophecy,  render  H]'' — "to  cause  to  start  up,"  "to 

startle."  The  only  plea  they  bring  for  this  unscrupulous 
departure  from  established  usage  of  the  word  is,  that  in  all  the 
other  places  this  verb  has  as  its  regimen  the  element  sprinkled, 
and  not  the  object.  This  objection  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander  pro- 
nounces frivolous,  and  denies  any  Hebrew  or  Arabic  support  to 
the  substituted  translation.  Again:  In  Ezek.  xxxvi  :  25,  are 
promises  which,  although  addressed  primarily  to  the  Jews  of 
the  Captivity,  are  evidently  evangelical ;  and  there  the  sprink- 
ling of  clean  water  symbolizes  the  gospel  blessings  of  regene- 
ration, remission,  and  spiritual  indwelling.  The  language  is  so 
strikingly  favourable  to  us,  that  it  seems  hardly  an  overstraining 
of  it  to  suppose  it  a  prediction  of  the  very  sacrament  of  bap- 
tism.    But  this  we  do  not  claim. 

Our  argument  is  greatly  strengthened  when  we  proceed  to 

New  Testament  Ex-  the  New  Testament.     Collate  Matt,  iii  :  1 1  ; 

an-.ples  of  Grace  by  Affu-  Acts  i  :  5  ;  ii  :  2-4  ;  ii  :  1 5-18  ;  ii  :  33  ;  x  : 

®'°"-  44,  45,  48  ;  xi  :  16,  17.     Here  our  argument 

49* 


770  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

is  two-fold.  First :  that  both  John  and  Christ  baptize  with 
water,  not  in  water.  Tliis  language  is  wholly  appropriate  to 
the  application  of  water  to  the  person,  wholly  inappropriate  to 
the  application  of  the  person  to  the  water.  No  Immersionist 
would  speak  of  dipping  with  water.  They  do  indeed  reclaim 
that  the  preposition  is  iv  here  translated  "  with,"  and  should  in  all 
fidelity  be  rendered  "in,"  according  to  its  admitted  use  in  the 
large  majority  of  New  Testament  cases.  This  we  utterly  deny  ; 
first,  because  in  the  mouth  of  a  Hebraistic  Greek,  iv  being  the 
established  equivalent  and  translation   of  2  may  naturally  and 

frequently  mean  "  with  ;"  but  second  and  chiefly  because  the  par- 
allel locutions  of  Luke  iii  :  i6  ;  Acts  i  :  5  ;  xi  :  i6  ;  Eph.  v  : 
26  ;  Heb.  x  :  22,  identify  the  iu  uoari,  &c.,  with  the  instrument. 
And  from  the  same  passages  we  argue  farther,  that  the  mode  of 
the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire,  is  fixed  most  indis- 
putably by  the  description  of  the  event  in  Acts  ii  :  2  and  4. 
The  long  promised  baptism  occurred.  And  what  was  it  ?  It 
was  the  sitting  of  tongues  of  fire  on  each  Apostle,  and  the 
"  descent,"  the  fall,  the  "pouring  out,"  the  "  shedding  forth," 
of  the  spiritual  influences.  To  make  the  case  still  stronger,  if 
possible,  when  the  spiritual  affusion  on  Cornelius  and  his  house 
occurred,  which  made  Peter  feel  that  he  was  justified  in  author- 
izing their  water-baptism,  he  informs  his  disapproving  brethren 
in  Jerilsalem  (Acts  xi  :  15,  16)  that  the  "  falling  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  them  as  on  us  at  the  beginning,"  caused  him  "  to  .re 
member"  the  great  promise  of  a  baptism,  not  with  water  only, 
but  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  If  baptism  is  never  an 
affusion,  how  could  such  a  suggestion  ever  arise  ? 

This   reasoning  is  so   cogent,  that   Immersionists  feel  the 

^     .       .  ,     necessity  of  an   evasion.     Their  Coryphseus, 

Evasions  Answered,     r^  .      .  -nti  ..  1 

Carson,  suggests  two.     No  element,  nor  mode 

of  applying  an  element,  he  says,  can  properly  symbolize  the 
essence  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  immense,  immaterial,  unique. 
All  men  are  at  all  times  immersed  in  it.  To  suppose  any 
analogy  between  water  affused,  and  this  infinite,  spiritual  essence, 
is  gross  materialism.  Very  true  ;  yet  here  is  some  sort  and  sense 
in  which  a  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  occurred  ;  and  if  it  is 
gross  anthropo-morphism  to  liken  His  ubiquitous  essence  to 
water  affused,  it  is  equally  so  to  liken  it  to  water  for  plunging. 
If  there  is  no  sense  in  which  the  analogy  between  the  baptismal 
element  and  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Ghost  can  be  asserted, 
then  it  is  God's  Word  which  is  in  fault ;  for  He  has  called  the 
outpouring  of  those  influences  a  baptism.  The  truth  is,  that 
here,  just  as  when  God  is  said  to  come,  to  go,  to  lift  up  His 
hand,  it  is  not  the  divine  essence  which  changes  its  place,  but  its 
sensible  influences. 

The  other  evasion  is,  to  say  that  because  this  baptism  is 
wholly  figurative,  and  not   a  proper  and   literal  baptism  at  all, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  77 1 

■therefore  it  can  contain  no  reference  whatever  to  mode.  We 
deny  both  premise  and  conclusion :  the  conclusion,  because 
Immersionists  infer  mode,  with  great  positiveness,  from  a  merely 
figurative  baptism,  in  Rom.  vi  :  4  ;  and  the  premise,  because 
the  baptism  of  Pentecost  was  in  the  best  sense  real,  the  most 
real  baptism  that  ever  was  in  the  world.  It  was,  indeed,  not 
material :  but  if  its  literal  reality  be  denied,  then  the  inspiration 
of  the  Apostles  is  denied,  and  the  whole  New  Testament  Dis- 
pensation falls. 

Our  argument,  then,  is  summed  up  thus  :   Here  was  a  spir- 
itual transaction,  which   Christ  was  pleased 
This  Argument  Sum-    ^^  ^^^j   j^jg   baptism,  in  the  peculiar  sense. 
In    this    baptism    the    outward    element  de- 
scended upon  the  persons  of  the  recipients,  and  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,   symbolized  thereby,  are  spoken  of  as  fall- 
ing.    Water  baptism,  which  is  intended,  like  the  fire,  to  symbol- 
ize the  spiritual  baptism,  should  therefore  be  also  applied  by 
affusion. 

While  we  deny  that  these   memorable  events  formed  only 
a  figurative  baptism,  yet  the  word  baptism  is 
9.   Argument  from    ^gg^j  [^  Scripture  in  a  sense  more  properly 
Figurative  Baptisms.  .  ,        1     n  it 

figurative,  and  wholly  non-sacramental.  Im- 
mersionists profess  to  find  in  all  these  an  allusion  to  dipping ; 
but  we  shall  show  that  in  every  case  such  allusion  is  uncertain,  or 
impossible. 

The  first  instance  is  that  of  Christ's  baptism  in  His  suffer- 
ings at  His  death.  Matt,  xx  :  20,  23  ;  Mark 
Son'ot'^  Baptism  m  ^  .  ^g^  ^^ .  ^^ke  xii  :  50.  Although  Luke 
refers  to  a  different  conversation,  yet  the 
allusion  to  His  dying  sufferings  is  undoubtedly  the  same. 
Now,  it  is  common  to  say  that  these  sufferings  were  called  a 
baptism,  because  Christ  was  to  be  then  covered  with  anguish 
as  with  an  overwhelming  flood.  Even  granting  this,  it  must  be 
remembered  the  Scriptures  always  speak  of  God's  wrath  as 
being  poured  out,  and  however  copious  the  shower,  an  effusion 
from  above  bears  a  very  questionable  resemblance  to  an  immer- 
sion of  the  person  into  a  body  of  liquid  beneath.  Some  (as 
Dr.  Armstrong)  find  in  this  figure  no  reference  to  the  mode  of 
baptism,  but  suppose  that  the  idea  is  one  of  consecration  sim- 
ply. Christ  is  supposed  to  call  His  dying  sufferings  a  baptism, 
because  by  them  He  was  inducted  into  His  kingly  office.  But 
this  is  not  wholly  satisfactory.  The  true  explanation  is  obvi- 
ously that  of  the  Greek  fathers.  As  is  well  known  to  students 
of  sacred  history,  the  martyr's  sufferings  were  considered  his 
baptism.  And  so  literal  was  the  notion  expressed  by  this,  that 
the  Fathers  gravely  argue  that  by  martyrdom  the  unbaptized 
catechumen,  who  witnesses  a  good  confession,  becomes  a  bap- 
tized Christian,  and  has  no  reason  whatever  to  regret  his  lack 
of  water  baptism,  supposed  by  them  to  be,  in  other  cases, 


772  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

essential.     To  the  question  why  martyrdom  is  called  by  them  a 

baptism,    they    answer    with    one    voice,    because    Christ    was 

pleased  to  call  His  own  martyrdom  a  baptism,  and  to  apply  the 

same  to  the  pious  sufferings  of  James  and  John.     And  they  say 

farther,  quoting  the  same  texts,  that  the  reason  Christ  calls  His 

dymg  sufferings  a  baptism  is,  because  they  cleansed  away  sin, 

as  the  water  of  baptism  symbolically  does.     Here,  then,  is  no 

reference  to  mode  of  water  baptism,  and  these  Greek  fathers, 

if  they  in  any  case  press  the  figure  to  a  signification  of  mode, 

speak  of  Christ's  body  as  baptized,  or  stained  with   His  own 

blood,  a  baptism  by  affusion.     And  the  baptism  of  martyrdom 

is  explained  as  a  baptism  of  blood  and  fire. 

I   Cor.  X  :  2    represents    the    Israelites    as    baptized    unto 

„    ^     .  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  in  passing- 

Israels   Baptism    to     ,i       t-,      ,  x  •       •   i.    r      i-  i  i        i.^.         Z. 

Moses.  the  Ked  sea.    Immersionists  ioohshly  attempt 

to  strain  a  reference  to  immersion  here,  by 
saying  that  the  Israelites  were  surrounded  with  water,  having 
the  sea  as  a  wall  on  the  either  hand,  and  the  cloud  overhead. 
But  unfortunately  for  this  far-fetched  idea,  it  is  expressly  said 
that  Israel  v.-ent  over  dry-shod.  And  the  cloud  was  not  over 
them,  but  behind  them.  Nor  is  there  any  proof  that  it  was  an 
aqueous  cloud  (it  was  fire  by  night  and  luminous);  and  the  alle- 
gorizing Greek  Fathers  currently  understand  it  as  representing, 
not  the  water  of  baptism,  but  God's  Holy  Ghost.  Nor  have  we 
any  proof  that  even  aqueous  vapor  can  be  substituted  for  the 
sacramental  element.  There  was  an  immersion  in  the  case,  but 
it  was  that  of  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts.  The  lost  were  immersed, 
the  saved  were  baptized  unto  Moses !  The  sense  of  the  pas- 
sage obviously  is,  that  by  this  event  Israel  were  dedicated,  sep- 
arated unto  that  religious  service  of  which  Moses  was  the 
teacher.  The  word  baptize  here  carries  no  reference  to  mode, 
but  has  its  proper  sense  of  religious  separation. 

The  same  is  its  meaning  in  i  Cor.  xii  :  13;  Gal.  iii  :  27; 
.  Eph.  iv  :  5,  and  i  Pet.  iii  :  21.  When  the 
Into  Christ!  ^^  ^"^  believer  is  said  to  be  baptized  into  (or  unto) 
Christ,  or  into  His  one  body,  and  thus 
to  have  put  on  Christ,  there  can  be  no  allusion  to  mode, 
because  then  it  would  be  the  preposterous  idea  of  immersing" 
into  Christ,  or  into  Plis  mystical  body,  instead  of  into  water. 
The  exact  idea  expressed^  is  that  of  a  consecrating  separation. 
Baptism  is  here  conceived  by  the  Apostle  as  our  separation 
from  the  ruined  mass  of  mankind  and  annexation  to  the 
Saviour  in  our  mystical  union.  So  in  i  Pet.  iii  :  21,  baptism  is 
called  a  figure  like  (avr.'r'.»-ov)  to  the  salvation  of  Noah's  family 
in  the  ark.  This  saving  was  from  water,  not  by  water,  and  it 
was  effected  in  the  ark.  Here  again  there  is  no  modal  refer- 
ence to  immersion,  for  the  parties  saved  were  not  dipped,  and 
all  who  were  dipped  were  lost.  The  baptism  of  Noah's  family 
was  therefore  their  separation  from  a  sinful  world,  effected  by 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  773 

the  waters  of  the  flood.  If  baptism  in  its  most  naked,  spiri- 
tual meaning,  carries  to  Hebrews  the  idea  of  a  religious  separ- 
ation, it  is  very  evident  what  mode  it  would  suggest,  should 
they  permit  their  minds  to  advert  to  mode.  Their  separations 
were  by  sprinklings.  The  remaining  passage  (Eph.  iv  :  5) 
could  only  have  been  supposed  to  teach  the  essential  necessity 
of  observing  water  baptism  in  only  one  mode,  by  a  mind  insen- 
sible to  the  elevation  and  sacredness  of  the  passage.  It  is  the 
glorious  spiritual  unity  between  Christians  and  their  Divine 
Head,  resulting  from  the  separating  consecration  which  bap- 
tism represents. 

The  identification  of  baptism  with  the  purification  of  the 
Jews,  in  Jno.  iii  :  25,  26,  throws  some  light 
ficadoZ^^^'"" ''  ^""'  "pon  its  mode.  The  question  about  purifying, 
agitated  between  the  Jews  and  some  of  the 
Baptist's  disciples,  (v.  25),  is  evidently  the  question  which  they 
propound  to  John  himself  (in  v.  26),  viz:  What  was  the  mean- 
ing of  Christ's  baptizing.  The  whole  tenour  of  John's  answer 
proves  this,  for  it  is  all  addressed-  to  the  explanation  of  this 
point:  why  Christ,  baptized  by  him,  and  thus  seem.ingly  his 
disciple,  should  administer  a  baptism  independent  of,  him. 
Any  other  explanation  leaves  an  absurd  chasm  between  verses 
25  and  26.  Baptism,  then,  is  'xad^aficaiw::,  a  striking  testimony  to 
the  correctness  of  our  account  of  its  signification,  a  matter 
which  we  found  to  bear,  in  so  important  a  way,  upon  its  mode. 
But  farther :  Let  anyone  consider  the  Septuagint  use  of  this 
word,  and  he  cannot  easily  remain  in  doubt  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  a  Jew  would  naturally  administer  it. 

My  time  will  not  permit  me  to  go  into  a  full  discussion  of 

the  actual  mode  indicated  by  the  sacred  his- 
II.   Mode    of   New     ,      •         •  1  r  i^    „4.-  ^„    •      -v       at 

Testament  Baptism.       ^onan  m  each  case  of  baptism  in  the  ^ew 

Testament.  Such  detail  is,  indeed,  not 
necessary,  inasmuch  as  you  may  find  the  work  well  done  in 
several  of  your  authors,  and  especially  in  Armstrong,  Part  H, 
■ch.  3,  4.  The  result  of  a  thorough  examination  was  well  stated 
by  a  divine  of  our  Church  thus :  Rule  three  columns  on  your 
blank  paper ;  mark  the  first,  'Certainly  by  immersion.;  the  sec- 
ond, *  Probably  by  immersion ;  the  third,  'Certainly  not  by 
immersion.'  Then,  after  the  careful  study  of  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment, enter  each  case  where  it  properly  belongs.  Under  the 
first  head  there  will  be  not  a  single  instance ;  under  the  second, 
there  may  be  a  few ;  while  the  larger  number  will  be  under  the 
third.  Immersionists,  when  they  read  that  John  was  baptizing 
in  Jordan,  and  again  at  ^Enon,  "  because  there  was  much  water 
there,"  conclude  that  he  certainly  immersed  his  penitents.  But 
when  we  note  that  the  language  may  as  well  be  construed  'at' 
Jordan,  and  that  the  '  many  waters  '  of  ^non  were  only  a  clus- 
ter of  springs ;  considering  also  the  unlikeliness  of  one  man's 
performing  such  a  multitude  of  immersions,  and  the  uninspired 


774  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

testimony  of  the  early  Church  as  to  the  method  of  our 
Saviour's  baptism,  the  probabihties  are  all  turned  the  other 
way.  So,  the  improbability  of  sufficient  access  to  water,  at 
Pentecost,  and  the  impossibility  of  twelve  men's  immersing 
three  thousand  in  one  afternoon,,  make  the  immersion  of  the 
Pentecostal  converts  out  of  the  question.  This  is  the  conclu- 
sion of  the  learned  Dr.  Edward  Robinson,  after  an  inquiry  on 
the  spot.  In  like  manner,  the  Eunuch's  baptism  may  possibly 
have  been  by  dipping,  but  was  more  probably  by  affusion ; 
while  the  cases  of  Paul,  Cornelius,  and  the  jailer,  were  certainly 
in  the  latter  mode. 

The   odious    ecclesiastical    consequences    of    the    Immer- 

sionist   dogma   should   be  pressed ;    because 

12.  The  Dogma  Un-    ^j^gy  form  a  most  potent  and  just  argument 

churches  all.  ■'.  .  ah-  ,      i  i 

agamst  it.     All  parties  are  agreed,  that  bap- 
tism is  the  initiatory  rite  which  gives  membership  in   the  visible 
Church  of  Christ.      The  great  commission  was  :     Go  ye,  and 
disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  Trinity.     Baptism 
recognizes  and  constitutes  the   outward   discipleship.     Least  of 
all,  can  any  immersionist  dispute  this  ground.     Now,  if  all  other 
forms  of  baptism  than  immersion  are  not  only  irregular,  but  null 
and  void,  all  unimmersed  persons  are  out  of  the  visible  Church. 
But  if  each  and  every  member  of  a  paedobaptist  visible  Church 
is  thus  unchurched:  of  course  the  whole  body  is   unchurched. 
All  paedobaptist  societies,  then,  are  guilty  of  an  intrusive  error, 
when  they  pretend  to  the  character  of  a  visible  Church  of  Christ. 
Consequently,  they  can  have  no   ministry ;  and  this  for  several 
reasons.  Surely  no  valid  office  can  exist  in  an  association  whose 
claim  to  be   an  ecclesiastical  commonwealth  is  utterly  invalid. 
When  the  temple  is  non-existent,  there  can  be  no  actual  pillars 
to  that  temple.     How  can  an  unauthorized   herd  of  unbaptized 
persons,  to  whom  Christ  concedes  no  church   authority,  confer 
any  valid  office  ?     Again  :  it  is  preposterous  that  a  man  should 
receive  and  hold  office  in   a  commonwealth  where    he  himself 
has  no  citizenship ;  but  this   unimmersed  paedobaptist  minister, 
so-called,  is  no  member  of  any  visible  Church.     There  are  no 
real  ministers  in  the  world,  except  the   Immersionist  preachers ! 
The  pretensions  of  all  others,  therefore,  to  act  as  ministers,  and 
to  administer  the  sacraments,  are  sinful  intrusions.     It  is  hard 
to  see  how  any  intelligent  and  conscientious  Immersionist  can  do 
any  act,  which  countenances  or  sanctions  this  profane  intrusion. 
They  should  not  allow  any  weak  inclinations  of  fraternity  and 
■    peace  to  sway  their  consciences  in  this  point  of  high  principle. 
They  are  bound,  then,  not  only  to  practise  close   communion, 
but  to  refuse  all  ministerial  recognition  and  communion  to  these 
intruders.     The  sacraments  cannot  go  beyond  the  pale  of  the 
visible  Church.     Hence,  the  same  stern  denunciations  ought  to 
be  hurled  at  the  Lord's  Supper  in  paedobaptist  societies,  and  at 
all  their  prayers  and  preachings  in  public,  as  at  the  iniquity  of 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY  775 

"  baby-sprinkling."  The  enlightened  immersionist  should  treat  all 
these  societies,  just  as  he  does  that  '  Synagogue  of  Satan,'  the 
Papal  Church  :  there  may  be  many  good,  misguided  believers  in 
them;  but  no  church  character,  ministry,  nor  sacraments  whatever. 
But  let  the  student  now  look  at  the  enormity  of  this  con- 
clusion. Here  are  bodies  of  ministers  adorned  by  the  Lord 
with  as  many  gifts  and  graces  as  any  Immersionists ;  actually 
doing  the  largest  part  of  all  that  is  done  on  earth,  to  win  the 
world  to  its  divine  Master.  Here  are  four-fifths  of  Protestant 
Christendom,  exhibiting  as  many  of  the  solid  fruits  of  grace  as 
any  body  of  men  in  the  world,  doing  nearly  all  that  is  done  for 
man's  redemption,  and  sending  up  to  heaven  a  constant  harvest 
of  ransomed  souls.  Yet  are  they  not  churches  or  ministers,  at 
all :  Why  ?  Only  because  they  have  not  used  quite  enough 
water  in  the  outward  form  of  an  ordinance  !  What  greater  out- 
rage on  common  sense,  Christian  charity,  and  the  spirituality  of 
Christ's  visible  Church  was  ever  committed  by  the  bigotry  of 
prelacy  or  popery  ?  The  just  mind  replies  to  such  a  dogma, 
not  only  with  a  firm  negative,  but  with  the  righteous  indignation 
of  an  "  incrcdiilus  odi."  When  we  remember,  that  this  ex- 
treme high-churchism  is  enacted  by  a  sect,  which  calls  itself  em- 
inently spiritual,  free  and  Protestant,  the  solecism  becomes  more 
repulsive.  Only  a  part  of  the  Immersionists  have  the  nerve  to 
assert  this  consequence.  But  their  dogma  involves  it ;  and  it  is 
justly  pressed  on  all. 

Your  acquaintance  with  Church  history  has  taught  you  the 
^    .   .  ,,   ,         tenour  of  the  usual  representations  of  the  an- 

l^.   Patnshc Modes.      ,.  •  .  i  •  ,i  ,  r  i         -• 

tiquanes,  touchmg  the  mode  of  baptism  m 
the  patristic  Churches.  The  usual  version  is,  that  in  the  second 
and  third  centuries  the  commonest  mode  of  baptism  was  by  a 
trine  immersion,  accompanied  with  a  number  of  superstitious 
rites,  of  crossing,  anointing,  laying  on  hands,  tasting  honey  and 
salt,  clothing  in  a  ^yhite  garment,  exorcism,  &c.  There  are  sev- 
eral reasons  why  we  do  not  consider  this  testimony  of  any 
importance. 

First,  the  New  Testament  mode  was  evidently  different,  in 
most  cases  at  least;  and  we  do  not  feel  bound  by  mere  human 
authority  (even  though  within  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the 
Apostles;  a  lapse  of  time  within  which  great  apostasies  have 
often  been  matured).  Second,  we  do  not  see  how  Immersion- 
ists can  consistently  claim  this  patristic  precedent  for  dipping,  as 
of  authority,  and  refuse  authority  to  all  their  other  precedents  for 
the  human  fooleries  which  so  uniformly  attended  their  baptisms. 
And  farther,  the  many  other  corruptions  of  doctrine  and  gov- 
ernment which  were  at  the  same  time  spread  in  the  Church,  prove 
the  fathers  to  be  wretched  examples  of  the  New  Testament  re- 
ligion. Third,  the  usage  was  not  as  uniformly  by  immersion, 
as  the  antiquaries  usually  say.  Thus,  Cyprian  teaches  us  (among 
many  others)  that   clinic  baptism  was  usually  by  pouring  or 


7/^5  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sprinkling,  in  the  third  century  ;  yet  it  was  never  regarded  as 
therefore  less  valid ;  and  that  father  speaks,  with  a  tone  nigh 
akin  to  contempt  of  the  notion  that  its  virtue  was  any  less,  be- 
cause less  water  was  used.  Again,  Dr.  Robinson  teaches  us, 
that  the  early  baptisms  could  not  have  uniformly  been  by  im- 
mersion ;  because  some  baptismal  urns  of  stone  are  still  pre- 
served, entirely  too  small  to  receive  the  applicant's  whole  per- 
son. And  several  monumental  remains  of  great  authenticity 
and  antiquity  show  us  baptisms  actually  by  affusion,  as  that  of 
the  Emperor  Constantine.  Again,  Mr.  Taylor,  in  his  Apostolic 
baptism,  shows  us  very  strong  reasons  to  believe  that  the  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  was  not  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
but  a  human  addition  and  preliminary  thereto.  For  instance, 
the  connection  of  deaconesses  with  the  baptizing  of  women, 
mentioned  by  not  a  few,  is  thus  explained  :  That  an  immersion 
and  actual  washing  /;/  puvis  natiiralibufi,  being  supposed  essential 
before  baptism ;  the  young  women  to  be  baptized  were  taken 
into  the  part  of  the  baptistery  where  the  pool  was,  and  there,  with 
closed  doors,  washed  by  the  deaconesses  ;  for  no  male  clergyman 
could  assist  here,  compatibly  with  decency.  And  that  after  this, 
the  candidates,  dressed  in  their  white  garments,  were  presented 
to  the  presbyter,  at  the  door  of  the  Church,  and  received  the 
actual  baptism,  by  affusion,  from  him.  This  view  of  the  dis- 
tinction iDetween  the  washing  and  the  sacrament  is  also  sup- 
ported by  what  modern  travelers  observe,  concerning  the  rite 
among  some  of  the  old,  petriiied,  Oriential  Churches. 

These  remarks  are  designed  not  for  a  full  discussion  :  but 
to  suggest  the  topics  for  your  examination. 

In    conclusion  of   the  subject    of   the  Mode  of    Baptism, 

„       .    ,   .  let  us  review  the  positions  successiveh^  estab- 

Recapitulation.  tij-  i.  t.jj- 

^  lished  m  a  somewhat  complicated  discussion. 

I.  Having  pointed  out  the  superior  importance  of  Hebraistic 
Greek  usage,  over  the  Classic,  in  determining  this  question,  we 
separate  the  usage  of  the  family  of  words  expressing  baptism 
into  two  questions  ;  their  meaning  when  expressive  of  common, 
secular  washings,  in  either  Classic  or  Hebraistic  Greek,  and  their 
meaning  when  expressive  of  religious,  or  ritual  washings. 

n.  We  show  that  all  common  words  applied  to  describe  re- 
ligious rituals,  ipso  facto,  undergo  some  modification  of  signifi- 
cation. And  hence,  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  family 
of  words  always  mean  nothing  but  dip,  in  common  secular  wash- 
ings, it  would  not  be  therefore  proved  of  baptism.     But 

HI.  The  family  of  words  do  not  always  mean  exclusive 
dipping,  either  in  Classic  or  Hebraistic  Greek,  when  expressive 
of  common  washings. 

IV.  Nor  do  they  mean  exclusive  dipping,  when  applied  to 
describe  religious  rituals  other  than  the  sacrament  of  Baptism, 
either  in  the  Old  Testament  Greek,  or  in  Josephus,  or  in  the 
New  Testament. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  J'J'J 

V.  Nor,  to  come  still  nearer,  is  its  proper  sacramental 
meaning  in  the  New  Testament  exclusive  dipping ;  as  we  prove, 
by  its  symbolical  meaning:  From  the  analogy  of  figurative 
baptisms  :  From  the  actual  attendant  circumstances  of  the  in- 
stances of  the  sacrament  in  the  New  Testament ;  And  from  the 
absurd  consequences  of  the  dogma.  I  commend  Fairchild  on 
Baptism,  as  a  manual  of  this  discussion  remarkably  compact, 
perspicuous,  and  comprehensive.  I  regard  it  as  eminently 
adapted  to  circulation  among  our  pastoral  charges. 


LECTURE  LXV. 

SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Who  are  proper  subjects  of  Christian  Baptism,  and  on  what  terms  ? 

Jo.  Edwards.  Qualific.  for  Communion.  Mason  on  the  Church,  Essay  i  and 
V.     Neander.     Cli.  Hist,  on  the  Novatian  and  Donatist  Schisms. 

2.  Meet  the  objection,  that  the  nature  of  Baptism  renders  it  necessarily  inappro- 
priate to  infants,  because  they  cannot  believe.     Review  of  Th.  Ernest. 

Dr.  L.  Woods'  Lect.  iii,  117,  or  Woods  on  Infant  Baptism.  Fairchild  on 
Baptism.  Armstrong  on  Baptism,  pt.  iii,  ch.  3,  Ridgley,  Qu.  165.  Note. 
Calv.  bk.  iv,  ch.  16. 

3.  Argue  infant-baptism  from  infant  church-membership. 

Mason  on  the  Church,  Essays  ii,  iv.  Woods'  Lect.  iii,  H2.  Armstrong,  pt. 
iii,  ch.  4,  5.  Calvin,  bk.  iv,  ch.  16.  Turrettin,  Loc.  .xix,  Qu.  20.  Ridgley, 
Qu.   166. 

4.  What  would  have  been  the  natural  objections  raised  by  the  Jews,  to  Christianity 
had  it  excluded  infants  ? 

Mason  on  the  Church,  Essay  v. 

5.  State   the   argument  for  infant-baptism  from  the  Great  Commission.     Matt, 
xxviii  :  19,  20 ;   Mark  xvi :  15,  16  ;  Luke  xxiv  :  47,  &c. 

Armstrong,  pt.  iii,  chs.  2,  6.  Woods'  Lect.  113,  &c.  See  on  whole.  Rev.  of 
Theo.  Ernest,  chs.  4-6. 

A  LL  adults  who  make  an  intelligent  and  credible  profession 
"^^     of  faith  on  Jesus  Christ  are  to  be  baptized   on  their  own 

application  ;  and  no  other  adults.  The  evi- 
to  be  Baptized. '^''"^''    dence  of  the  last   assertion  is   in  Acts   ii:4i, 

47  ;  X  :  47,  with  xi  :  15,  16,  and  viii  :  12,  37. 
The  genuineness  of  the  last  text  is  indeed  grievously  questioned 
by  the  critical  editors,  except  Knapp  ;  but  even  if  spurious,  its 
early  and  general  introduction  gives  us  an  information  of  the 
■clear  conviction  of  the  Church  on  this  subject.  Last:  the 
truths  signified  by  baptism,  are  such  that  it  is  obviously  inap- 
propriate to  all  adults  but  those  who  are  true  believers,  in  the 
judgment  of  charity. 

We  add  that  baptism  is  also  to  be  administered   to  "  the 

infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents." 
be'^a^tiSl"'""''''    (Conf   28,  §  4).      The   great   question   here 

raised  will  be  the  main  subject  of  this  and  a 


']'/%  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

subsequent  lecture.  But  a  related  question  is  still  agitated 
among  Paedobaptists  themselves,  whether  one  or  both  of  the 
parents  must  be  believers,  or  only  decent  baptized  members  of 
the  Church.  Papists  baptize  the  children  of  all  baptized  per- 
sons, and  Episcopalians,  Methodists,  and  not  a  few  of  the  Pres- 
byterian family  of  Churches,  baptize  those  of  all  decent  bap- 
tized persons.  They  plead  the  Church-membership  of  the 
parents,  the  example  of  the  Jewish  Church  as  to  circumcision, 
and  a  kindly,  liberal  policy  as  to  parents  and  infants.  We 
object :  first  the  express  language  of  our  Standards,  Conf.  of 
Faith  xxviii  :  4;  Larger  Cat.  Qu.  166.  "  Infants  of  one  or  both 
believing  parents,"  •*  professing  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to 
Him."  Second  :  The  language  of  i  Cor.  vii  :  14,  where  it  is  not 
the  baptized,  but  the  "believing"  parent,  who  sanctifies  the 
unbelieving.  Third  :  Those  baptized,  but  unbelieving  parents 
are  Church  members,  subject  to  its  guardianship  and  discipline ; 
but  they  are  not  full  members.  They  are  ecclesiastical  minors, 
cut  off  by  their  own  guilty  lack  of  spiritual  qualification  from 
all  the  spiritual  privileges,  and  sealing  ordinances.  Fourth : 
Chiefly  because  it  is  preposterous  that  those  who  make  no  con- 
secration of  their  own  souls  to  Christ,  and  do  not  pretend  to 
govern  themselves  by  His  laws,  should  profess  to  consecrate 
the  souls  of  their  children,  and  rear  them  to  God.  If  then,  it 
be  urged  that  the  children  ought  not  to  be  deprived  of  their 
ecclesiastial  privilege,  because  of  the  impenitence  of  the  par- 
ents ;  I  reply.  Perfectly  true  :  There  is  a  great  and  cruel  wrong 
committed  on  the  little  ones.  But  it  is  their  own  parents  who 
commit  it:  not  the  Church  authorities.  They  cannot  repair 
that  wrong,  by  giving  them  the  shell  of  a  sacrament  which  their 
parents'  unbelief  makes  perfectly  empty.  This  is  no  remed}^ ; 
and  it  only  violates  Scripture,  and  introduces  disorder.  This 
will  be  greatly  strengthened,  when  we  show  that  Infant  Baptism 
is  a  sacrament  to  the  parents  also. 

Under  the  old  Covenant  the  children  of  all  circumcised 
persons  were  circumcised  ?  True.  But  St.  Paul  has  changed 
it;  because,  as  we  surmise,  ours  is  a  more  spiritual  dispensation, 
no  State-Church  separation  exists  from  the  world :  and  all  un- 
believers are  spiritually  "aliens." 

Under  the  Jewish  Church  the  children  of  mixed  marriages 
were  out  of  the  Church,  until  they  came  in  through  the  gate  of 
proselytism.  Neh.  xiii  :  23-28.  But  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment, if  one  parent  is  a  credible  believer,  the  child  is  within  the 
Covenant.  Our  grounds  are  i  Cor.  vii  :  14,  and  the  circum- 
cision and  baptism  of  Timothy.     Acts  xvi  :  3. 

Before  we  proceed   to  the  main  point  of  debate,  it  will  be 

2,    Immersionists    Well  to  remove  out  of  the  way  the  objection 

Object ;    Infants  Can-    on  which  Immersionists  place   the  main  reli- 

e  leve.  ance.     They  urge  that  since   infants  cannot 

exercise  the  graces  signified  and  sealed  in  baptism,  (See  Cate- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  779 

chism,  Qu.  94),  it  is  useless  and  preposterous  to  administer  it  to 
babies.  Take,  say  they,  Mark  xvi  :  15,  16,  as  a  specimen  of 
the  many  passages  in  which  it  is  categorically  said,  or  clearly 
implied,  that  one  must  believe,  before  it  is  proper  to  baptize 
him.  Hence  the  administration  of  the  rite  to  infants  is  a  prac- 
tical falsehood,  and  if  unauthorized  by  God,  even  profane. 
What,  they  ask,  can  all  your  inferential  arguments  for  infant 
Church-membership  be  worth,  when  the  express  words  of  Scrip- 
ture prove  that  infants  cannot  have  the  necessary  qualifications 
for  baptism  ? 

We  reply,  this  plausible  statement  proceeds  on  the  usual 
fallacy  of  taking  the  speaker's  words  in  a 
nswers,  sense   in  which  he  did   not  mean  them  to  be 

applied.  In  Mark  xvi  :  16,  for  instance,  Christ  was  not  speaking 
either  of  the  terms  of  infant  salvation,  or  of  the  terms  on  which 
they  could  become  Church-members.  Let  the  reader  remem- 
ber that  the  temporary  commission  to  the  apostles  and  seventy 
(Matt.  X  :  5)  had  already  made  them  familiar  with  the  fact  that 
Christ's  dispensation  was  to  be  preached  to  Jews.  But  now,  in 
Mark  xvi  :  15,  it  is  extended  "to  all  the  world,"  and  to  "every 
creature."  These  were  the  features  of  the  new  commission 
prominent  to  our  Saviour's  mind,  and  the  disciples'  attention. 
The  terms  on  which  Jewish  families  should  be  admitted  were 
already  familiar.  The  question  was,  how  shall  those  be  ad- 
mitted who  are  now  aliens  ?  Why ;  on  their  faith.  The  evi- 
dence that  infants  were  not  here  intended  to  be  excluded  from 
baptism  by  our  Saviour's  scope  is  absolutely  demonstrative :  for 
the  Immersionist  interpretation  would  equally  make  the  pas- 
sage prove  that  infants  can  neither  be  baptized,  nor  be  saved, 
because  they  are  incapable  of  faith  ;  and  it  would  equally  make 
it  prove  that  the  salvation  of  infants  is  dependent  on  their  bap- 
tism !  We  may  find  many  other  illustrations  of  the  absurdity 
of  such  interpretations  ;  as,  for  instance,  in  2  Thess.  iii  :  10  :  "  If 
any  one  {sc  zc:)  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat."  A  similar 
reasoning  would  prove  that  infants  should  be  starved. 

Further  :  it  does  not  follow  that  because  infants  cannot 
Infants  Can  be  in  Gxercise  intelligent  graces,  therefore  there  is 
the  Covenant,  so  May  no  sense  nor  reason  in  administering  to  them 
Have  Its  Seals.  sacraments   significant    thereof.     Infants    are 

capable  of  redemption.  Glorious  truth!  Why,  then,  should  it 
appear  a  thing  incredible  that  they  should  partake  of  the  sac- 
raments of  redemption  ?  Baptism  signifies  God's  covenant 
with  souls,  as  well  as  their  covenant  with  Him.  Can  there  be 
no  meaning  in  a  pledge  of  God's  covenant-favour  applied  to  an 
infant,  because  the  infant  does  not  yet  apprehend  it  ?  No  sense 
at  all;  because  it  has  no  sense  to  him?  Strange  reasoning! 
But  human  suppositions  are  a  bad  test  of  what  God  may  or  may 
not  think  reasonable.  To  the  Word  and  the  Testimony! 
There  we  find  two  cases  in   which  religious    ordinances   were 


780  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

applied  to  "  unconscious  babies."  In  Matt,  xix  :  14,  Mark 
X  :  14  ;  Luke  xviii :  16,  our  Saviour  took  up  little  children  [^[jicfr^) 
into  His  arms,  and  blessed  them,  because  they  were  Church 
members.  Did  they  comprehend  the  blessing?  The  other 
case  is  that  of  circumcision,  and  it  is  peculiarly  strong,  because  it 
was  emblematic  of  the  same  spiritual  exercises  and  graces,  nov/ 
signified  by  baptism.  See  Rom.  ii  :  28,  29 ;  iv:  11  ;  Col.  ii:  11  ; 
Deut.  XXX  :  6  ;  ix  :  16  ;  Phil,  iii :  3.  Yet  circumcision  was,  by  God's 
command,  applied  to  all  the  infant  males  of  God's  people !  Let 
the  Immersionist,  therefore,  go  and  turn  all  the  confident  denun- 
ciation of  "  baby-sprinkling,"  against  this  parallel  ordinance  of 
God.     We  entrench  ourselves  behind  it. 

Once   more :     So   far  as  the  child  himself  is  concerned, 

there  is  no  absurdity  in  giving  him  the  seal 
bJcerSe'p"":!''"'    in   advance    of   his    fulfillment   of   the    con- 

ditions.  Are  not  seals  often  appended  to 
promissor}^  covenants  ?  Yea,  every  covenant  is  in  its  nature 
promissory,  including  something  to  be  done,  as  a  condition  of 
the  bestowment.  This  is  so  of  adult  baptism.  But,  they  say, 
the  adult  can  be  a  party  ;  infants  not.  I  answer :  parents  are, 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  parental  relation,  properly  sanctified,  is 
regular  enough  to  justify  this  arrangement.  Where,  then,  is 
the  practical  objection,  so  far  as  the  infant's  own  subsequent 
edification  is  concerned,  of  his  receiving  the  seal  beforehand, 
so  that  he  may  ever  after  have  the  knowledge  of  that  fact, 
with  all  its  solemn  meaning,  and  see  it  re-enacted  in  every 
infant  baptism  he  afterward  witnesses  ?  But,  above  all,  remem- 
ber that  the  infant  is  not  the  only  party,  on  man's  side,  to  the 
sacrament.  Infant  baptism  is  a  sacrament  to  the  parent,  as 
well  as  the  child.  It  consecrates  the  relation  of  filiation,  or 
parentage,  and  thus  touches  both  the  parties  to  the  relation 
equally.  The  parent  has  momentous  duties  to  perform,  for 
God's  glory ;  and  momentous  religious  responsibilities,  as  to 
the  soul  of  the  child,  which  duties  are  also  represented  and 
pledged  in  this  sacrament,  as  well  as  God's  promised  aid  and 
blessing  in  their  performance.  Infant  baptism  is  a  sacrament 
to  the  parent  as  much  as  to  the  child.  Now,  whatever  of  warn- 
ing, instruction,  comfort,  edification,  the  sacrament  was  intended 
to  convey  to  the  parent,  to  fit  him  better  for  his  charge  as  the 
educator  of  the  child  for  eternity;  when  should  the  parent 
receive  that  equipment?  When  does  the  moral  education  of 
the  infant's  soul  begin?  It  begins  just  so  soon  as  the  forma- 
tion of  habit  begins ;  so  soon  as  petulance,  anger,  selfishness, 
can  be  exhibited  by  an  infant ;  so  soon  as  it  can  apprehend  the 
light  of  a  mother's  smile  beaming  upon  it  as  it-  hangs  upon  her 
breast ;  as  soon  as  it  can  know  to  tremble  at  her  frown.  Here, 
then,  is  the  great  practical  reason,  which  makes  God's  wisdom 
clear  even  to  man's  reason,  in  instituting  the  seal  of  Church 
membership  at  the  dawn  of  life. 


OF    LECTURES    IX    THEOLOGY.  '  7S1 

We   proceed   now   to  advance  the  positive  evidences  toi^- 
3.  Argument  from    infant    baptism.      Of   these,    the    most    sohd 
Infant  Membership  in    and    Comprehensive     is     that     from    infant 

Old  Testament  and  Church-membership  in  the  New  Testament 
New.     Major  Premise.     ^-^1  ■,         ^p,  .  .  ^ 

■'  Church,      ihe    major    premise   of  our  argu- 

ment is,  that  baptism  is,  in  all  cases,  the  proper  rite  by  which  to 
recognize  membership  in  the  visible  Church.  The  minor  pre- 
'mise  is,  the  infants  of  believing  parents  are  members  of  the 
visible  Church  of  Christ.  Hence,  the  conclusion  :  such  infants 
are  proper  subjects  of  baptism. 

On  the  major  premise  there  will  probably  be  little  dispute 
between  us  and  Immersionists.  In  the  great  commission,  we 
are  taught  that  discipleship  is  formally  constituted  by  baptism 
(Matt,  xxviii  :  19).  In  Acts  ii  :  41,  language  is  used  which 
plainly  shows  that  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  was 
equivalent  to  their  being  added  to  the  Church.  In  i  Cor.  xii  : 
13,  the  spiritual  engrafting  of  true  believers  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
into  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  the  invisible  Church,  is  called 
a  baptism  ;  in  evident  allusion  to  the  effect  of  that  rite  in  intro- 
ducing to  the  visible  Church. 

The   minor  premise  leads  us  to    consider  the   origin   and 

constitution   of  the  Church.     Having   found 

Minor    Premise,    jj^    ^i^g    Qld    Testament    a    visible    Church- 

Church  Formed  Under 

Abraham.  State,  called  hrO  and  rn^^,  and  character- 

ized by  every  mark  of  a  Church,  we  trace  that  society  up  the 
stream  of  sacred  history,  until  we  find  its  institution  (or  re-insti- 
tution) in  the  family  of  Abraham,  and  in  that  gospel  and  eccle- 
siastical covenant  ratified  with  him  in  Genesis,  ch.  xvii.  The 
patriarchal  form  was  most  naturally  superinduced  on  this 
Church  then;  because  it  was  the  only  organized  form,  with 
which  man  had  hitherto  been  familiar,  and  the  one  best  suited 
to  that  state  of  the  world.  The  society  there  organized  was 
set  apart  to  the  service  and  worship  of  God.  It  was  organized 
under  ecclesiastical  rulers.  It  had  the  Word  and  gospel  of 
God.  It  had  its  sacrament  and  other  sacred  rites.  No  one 
will  dispute  the  continuity  of  this  society  under  Moses  and  his 
successors ;  for  the  covenant  of  Horeb  manifestly  developed, 
,it  did  not  destroy,  the  body. 

But  can  the  same  thing  be  said  of  the  visible  Church  cath- 
,  olic  which  has  existed  since  Christ,  under  the 

Nevv'Teslament.  "  ^'^  organization  given  it  by  the  Apostles  ?  The 
Reformed  Churches  answer,  Yes.  This  is 
substantially  the  same  with  the  Church  of  the  Old  Testament. 
The  change  of  dispensation  is  the  change  of  outward  form,  not 
of  its  substance  or  nature.  This  is  proved,  (a)  By  the  fact- 
that  the  repeal  of  God's  Church-covenant  with  Abraham  and 
his  family  is  nowhere  stated.  The  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic 
economy  does  not  destroy  the  old  body,  because  that  economy 


782  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

did  not  introduce  it.  The  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  could  not  disannul  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham.     Gal.  iii  :  17. 

(a)  The  Apostles  and  Christ,  by  their  acts  and   sayings, 

recognize  the  existence  of  a  visible  Church, 
notDeSroyi?""''"^'    ^^'^i^h  they  do  not  abolish,  but  reform,  and 

increase.  Observe  in  how  many  instances, 
particular  churches  were  but  synagogues  Christianized.  Con- 
sider also,  how  those  traits  of  order  and  ritual  which  are  dis- 
tinctive of  the  new  dispensation,  were  made  to  overlap  those 
which  marked  the  old.  The  substitution  of  the  former  for  the 
latter  was  gradual.  St.  Paul  observed  the  passover  after  he 
began  to  keep  the  Lord's  Supper;  he  circumcised  Timothy 
after  he  began  to  baptize  Gentiles.  There  is  no  sudden  cutting 
off  of  the  old,  but  a  gradual  "  sphcing  "  of  the  new  on  it. 

(b)  The  Apostle  expressly  .teaches  that  Gentile  converts, 
„    ^,     p        ,  .,      coming    to    Christ    by   faith,    are    under   the 

terms  ot  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  There- 
fore that  covenant  is  not  abolished.  They  are  "  the  seed ;" 
they  are  the  "children  of  Abraham."  They  are  "the  true 
Israel.''  Rom.  iv  :  12-17;  Matt,  iii  :  9;  Gal.  iii  :  7.  Indeed, 
the  "  seed,"  to  whom  the  promises  were  made,  never  was,  at 
any  time,  strictly  coincident  with  the  lineal  descendants  of 
Abraham.  Ishmael,  Keturah's  children,  Esau,  though  circum- 
cised, were  no  part  of  it.  Every  heathen  proselyte  was.  See 
Gen.  xvii :  12,  13  ;  Exod.  xii :  48  ;  Deut.  xxiii :  8.  Gentiles  were 
always,  as  truly  (not  as  numerously)  as  now,  a  part  of  this  seed. 

(c)  The  correlative  promises  that   "  all  nations  should  be 
Promises  to  it  Only    b^essed  in  Abraham,"  and  that  he  should  be 

Fulfilled  Under  New    "  Father    of  many    nations,"    were   only   ful- 
Testament.  filled  as  the  Gentiles  were   made  members  of 

the  Abrahamic  body.  See  Rom.  iv  :  16,  17.  It  cannot  be  said 
that  Abraham's  paternity  of  the  twelve  tribes  exhausted  that 
promise,  for  Israel  was  but  one  nation.  If,  then,  the  Abra- 
hamic Church  expired  before  the  Gentiles  were  brought  in,  this 
promise  was  never  fulfilled.  It  will  not  help  the  cause  to  say 
that  Abraham  was  father  of  these  believers,  in  the  sense  of 
being  their  first  exemplar.  He  was  not.  Noah,  Enoch,  Abel, 
probably  Adam,  were  before  him.  The  relationship  is  that  of 
the  head  and  founder  of  an  organization,  to  the  subsequent 
members  of  it.  Nor  will  it  be  said,  that  the  Gentiles  becoming 
"Abraham's  seed  "  only  means  their  admission  into  the  invisi- 
ble Church,  into  which  Abraham's  faith  admitted  him.  This  is, 
indeed,  a  higher  sequel  to  the  privilege,  as  to  all  true  believers, 
but  not  the  whole  of  it.  We  have  proved  that  the  covenant 
was  not  purely  spiritual,  but  also  an  ecclesiastical,  visible 
Church  covenant.  Therefore  the  seed,  or  children  of  the  cov^- 
enant  (see  Acts  iii  :  25)  are  also  thereby  brought  into  the  visi- 
ble Church  relationship. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  783 

(d)  The  number  of  Old  Testament  promises  to  the  visible 
Church,  some  of  which  were  unfulfilled  at  the  end  of  the  old 
dispensation,  must  imply  that  the  community  is  still  in  exist- 
ence to  receive  their  fulfillment.  Otherwise  God  has  failed. 
See,  then,  Isa.  ii  :  2,  3 ;  liv  :  1-5,  xlix  :  14-23 ;  Ps.  ii  :  6,  8.  It 
cannot  be  said  that  the  invisible  Church  is  the  sole  object  of 
these  promises. 

(e)  Last.     The  figure  of  Rom.  xi  :  17  to  24,  plainly  implies 

that  the  Old  Testament  visible  Church  is 
.  continued  under  the  new  dispensation.  The 
good  olive  tree  was  not  uprooted,  but  pruned,  and  new 
branches  grafted  in.  And  at  last,  the  exscinded  branches  are 
to  be  regrafted  "  into  their  own  olive  tree."  The  argument  is 
too  clear  and  strong  to  need  many  words. 

Thus,  our  minor  premise  is   established.     The   ecclesias- 
Inference.    Con-    tical    Covenant    made    with    Abraham    still 
firmed  by  all   Provi-    subsists    unrepealed,    and    all   Christians  are 
^^^^^^-  brought  under  it.     As  children  were  members 

of  that  covenant,  the  inference  is  irresistible  that  they  are 
members  still,  unless  their  positive  exclusion  can  be  pointed 
out  in  the  New  Testament.  This  inference  is  also  greatly  for- 
tified, by  showing  that  all  God's  general  dispensations  toward 
the  human  family  have  embraced  the  children  along  with  the 
parents.  In  the  Covenant  of  Works  with  Adam :  in  the  curse 
for  its  breach  :  in  the  covenant  with  Noah :  in  the  curse  on 
Sodom :  in  the  doom  of  the  Canaanites  and  Amelekites :  in 
the  constitution  of  society  and  course  of  Providence  in  all 
ages  :  in  the  political  commonwealths  ordained  by  Him  :  in  all 
these,  the  infant  children  go  with  the  parents.  Were  the  visi- 
ble Church  different,  it  would  be  a  strange  anomaly. 

Again:  Malachi  tells  us  (ii  :  15)  that  God's  object  in  con- 
stituting the  marriage  relation  and  family  as  it  is,  was  "  to  seek 
a  godly  seed  ;"  i.  e.,  to  provide  for  the  Christian  rearing  of  the 
offspring.  Now,  this  is  the  Church's  object.  Would  it  not  be 
strange  if  the  visible  Church  failed  to  embrace  and  consecrate 
the  family  institution  as  a  subdivision  of  itself?  Third  :  The 
affection,  authority,  and  influence  of  parents  are  so  unique,  that 
when  we  properly  consider  them,  it  seems  incredible  God  would 
have  omitted  them  as  parts  of  His  Church  instrumentalities, 
subject  to  the  sanctifying  rules  of  His  house.  Parental  love  is 
the  strongest  of  the  instinctive  affections,  and  the  most  god- 
like in  its  permanence,  forbearance,  and  disinterestedness.  Pa- 
rental authority  is  the  most  remarkable  and  absolute  one  dele- 
gated by  God  to  man  over  his  fellow  man.  Consider :  it  author- 
izes the  parent  to  govern  the  child  for  a  fourth  of  his  life  as  a 
slave  ;  to  decide  virtually  his  intelligence,  culture,  and  social 
destiny,  and  even  to  elect  for  him  a  character  and  religious 
creed  ;  thus  seeming  almost  to  infringe  the  inalienable  responsi- 
bilities and   liberties    of  the    immortal   soul !     And    last  :    the 


784  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

parental  influence  is  so  efficacious,  especially  in  things  moral 
and  religious,  that  it  does  more  than  all  others  to  decide  the 
child's  everlasting  fate.  Can  it  be  that  God  would  omit  such  a 
lever  as  this,  in  constructing  His  Church,  as  the  organism  for 
man's  moral  and  religious  welfare  ?  Fourth  :  The  Church-mem- 
bership of  children  seems  to  be  implied  in  that  duty  which  all 
right-minded  Christians  instinctively  exercise,  of  caring  for  the 
welfare  and  salvation  of  the  children  of  the  brotherhood.  Fifth  :  It 
follo'vs  from  the  declared  identity  of  circumcision  and  baptism, 
and  from  many  express  Scriptures.  See  Col.  ii:  11,12,13;  Matt, 
xix  :  13-15  ;  Acts  ii  :  38,  39  ;  i  Cor.  vii  :  14.  The  Church 
membership  of  infants  having  been  thus  established,  the  pro- 
priety of  their  baptism  follows.  Indeed,  immersionists  virtually 
admit  that  if  the  second  premise  is  true,  the  conclusion  must 
follow,  by  denying  the  Church-membership  of  infants  under  the 
New  Testament. 

IMany  evasions  of  this  argument  are  attempted.  Immer- 
Visible  Church  in  Old  sionists  deny  that  there  was  any  visible 
Testament  Denied  by  Church-State  appointed  for  saints  in  the 
Immersionists.  Answer,  qm  Testament !  This  is  a  striking,  and  at 
once  a  mournful,  proof  of  the  stringency  of  my  argument,  that 
a  body  of  evangelical  Christians  claiming  especial  scriptural- 
ness  and  orthodoxy,  should  be  forced,  in  resisting  it,  to  adopt 
one  of  the  most  monstrous  assertions  of  those  flagrant  heretics 
and  fanatics,  the  Anabaptists  and  Socinians.  You  have  only  to 
notice  how  expressly  it  contradicts  the  Scriptures,  Acts  vii  :  38  ; 
Rom.  xi  :  24  ;  Heb.  iii  :  5,6:  How  it  defies  the  plainest  facts 
of  the  Old  Testament  history,  which  shows  us  God  giving  His 
people  every  possible  feature  of  a  visible  Church-State  ;  gospel, 
ministry,  sacraments,  other  ordinances,  Sabbath,  discipline, 
sanctuaries,  &c.  :  How  utterly  it  confounds  all  relations  between 
the  old  and  new  dispensations  :  And  how  preposterously  it 
represents  Christ's  own  personal  life,  observances,  and  obedi- 
ence, including  especially  His  baptism  by  John,  an  Old  Testa- 
ment prophet,  administering  his  rite  in  this  Old  Testament  No- 
Church  ;  which  rite  is,  according  to  immersionists,  still  the 
Christian  sacrament ! 

Some  of  them  assert  that  the   argument,  if  good  for  any- 
Objected   that  the    thing,  would  equally  make  all  adult  unbeliev- 
Argument  Proves  Too    ing  children  of  believing  parents,  and  all  un- 
Much.    Answer.  believing  domestic   slaves,  Church  members. 

Is  no  force  to  be  allowed  to  the  passing  away  of  the  patri- 
archal state,  with  the  almost  absolute  authority  of  the  father? 
None  to  the  growing  spirituality  of  the  New  Covenant?  None 
to  the  express  change  in  these  features  by  apostolic  authority, 
as  is  manifested  in  their  precedents  ?  Still,  all  that  could  be 
made  of  this  argument  would  be  to  prove,  not  that  the  reason- 
ing of  Pedobaptists  is  unsound,  but  that  their  conduct  may  be 
inconsistent. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  785 

Sometimes  it  is  objected  that  if  infants  were  really  made 
members  of  the  visible  Church,  then,  as  they  grow  up,  they 
must  be  admitted,  without  question,  to  all  the  privileges  of 
membership,  to  suffrage,  to  office,  to  the  Lord's  supper.  I  reply 
that  there  is  no  commonwealth  on  earth,  where  mere  citizenship 
entitles  to  all  the  higher  franchises.  In  the  State,  all  citizens 
are  entitled  to  protection,  and  subject  to  jurisdiction.  But  all 
cannot  vote  and  bear  office.  Christ's  ecclesiastical  common- 
wealth is  a  school,  a  place  for  teaching  and  training.  To  be  a 
member  of  the  school  does  not  at  once  imply  that  one  must 
share  all  its  powers  and  privileges.  The  scholars  are  j^romoted 
according  to  their  qualifications. 

It  is  objected  by  some  :  If  Peter  and  his  brethren  were 
in  the  visible  Church,  how  comes  it  that 
olT±fwold)^°'""  Christ  says  to  them  :  "  I  have  chosen  you 
out  of  the  world  ?"  Jno.  xv  :  19.  I  answer  : 
Cannot  that  which  is  worldly,  in  the  true  sense,  be  in  the  visible 
Church?  The  objection  begs  the  question.  The  very  point  in 
debate  is,  whether  the  Anabaptist  definition  of  the  visible 
Church,  as  a  body  containing  only  regenerate  persons,  is 
true.  The  Bible  says  that  it  is  not :  that  Peter  was  yet 
worldly,  while  regularly  in  the  visible  Church,  and  was,  out 
of  that  state  chosen  by  Christ  to  the  apostleship,  and  to 
effectual  calling. 

One  more  objection   may  be  noted :  If  the  visible  Church 

of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  is  one,  then 

.  ^^y  y^^f  J?,^^  ^^P"  circumcision  and  baptism  are  alike  the  initia- 
tized  II  in  the  Church :  ^  .        , 

tory  rites.  How  came  it  then,  that  Jews, 
already  regularly  in  it,  were  re-admitted  by  baptism  ?  I  reply 
first.  It  is  not  so  certain  that  they  were.  Note,  that  we  do  not 
believe  John's  baptism  to  have  been  the  Christian  sacrament. 
But  who  can  prove  that  the  Twelve,  and  the  Seventy  were  ever 
baptized  again  ?  As  for  the  Jews  after  Pentecost,  who  certainly 
did  receive  Christian  baptism,  they  were  now,  (after  Christ's 
definite  rejection,  crucifixion,  and  ascension)  "broken  off  for 
their  unbelief;"  and  needed  re-admittance  on  their  repentance. 
But  second,  where  is  the  anomaly  of  re-administering  the  initia- 
tory rite  to  members  already  in  the  Society,  at  the  season  of 
the  marked  change  of  outward  form,  when  it  was  receiving  a 
large  class  of  new  members  ?  I  see  nothing  strange  in  the  fact, 
that  the  old  citizens  took  their  oath  of  allegiance  over  again, 
along  with  the  new. 

Immersionists  delight  to  urge,  that  as  baptism  is  a  positive 

institution,  no  Protestant  should  administer 

w"^'  ^1  ^^'''  Testament  j^.  ^^  infants,  because   the  New  Testament 

Warrant  Kequired.  .  ...  -  ,    . 

contains  no  explicit  warrant    lor  doing  so. 
I  shall  show  that  the  tables  can  be  turned  on  this  point. 

When  a  society  undergoes  important  modifications,  its  sub- 

50* 


786  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

stantial  identity  yet  remaining,  the  fair  pre- 
th?lmmer°sLnisTs!°°^°''  sumption  is,  that  all  those  things  are  intended 
to  remain  unchanged,  about  the  change  of 
which  nothing  is  said.  We  may  illustrate  from  citizenship  in  a 
Commonwealth,  changing  its  constitution.  So,  if  there  were 
not  one  word  in  all  the  New  Testament,  indicating  the  continu- 
ance of  infant  Church-membership,  the  silence  of  Scripture 
constitutes  no  disproof;  and  the  burden  of  proof  would  rest  on 
the  Immersionist.  And  this  burden  he  would  have  to  assume 
against  every  antecedent  probability.  True,  the  cessation  of 
the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  accompanied  with  great  changes  ; 
but  infant  membership  and  circumcision  never  were  merely 
Mosaic.  We  may  say  of  them,  as  of  the  Covenant  to  which 
they  belonged,  as  St.  Paul  says  in  Gal.  iii  :  17.  All  that  was 
typical,  passed  away,  because  of  the  coming  of  the  Antitype  : 
circumcision  and  infant  membership  never  were  types.  Again, 
infant  membership  was  esteemed  by  Jews  a  privilege.  We 
understand  that  the  new  dispensation  is  an  extension  of  the  old 
one,  more  liberal  in  its  provisions,  and  its  grace :  and  embracing 
the  whole  human  family.  It  would  be  a  strange  thing  indeed, 
if  this  era  of  new  liberality  and  breadth  were  the  occasion  for 
a  new  and  vast  restriction,  excluding  a  large  class  of  the  human 
family,  in  whom  the  pious  heart  is  most  tenderly  interested. 
Consider  this  in  the  light  of  the  Apostle's  language :  e.  g.,  in 
Rom.  xi  :  20  ;  Acts  iii  :  23.  In  these  and  similar  passages,  the 
Jews  are  warned  that  unbelief  of  Christ,  the  great  closing 
Prophet  of  the  line,  (like  resistance  of  previous  Theocratic  Mes- 
sengers,) will  be  accpmpanied  with  loss  of  their  church  member- 
ship. According  to  Immersionists,  the  meaning  of  this  warning 
would  be :  "  Oh,  Jew  ;  if  you  believe  not  on  Jesus  Christ,  you 
(and  your  children)  jforfeit  your  much  valued  visible  Church 
membership.  But  if  you  believe  on  Him,  then  your  innocent 
children  shall  be  punished  for  your  obedience,  by  losing  their 
privileges !" 

Further,  no  Immersionist  is  consistent,  in  demanding  an 

What  New  Testament  ^xpress  New  Testament  warrant  in  words. 
Warrant  for  Close  Com-  for  all  his  ordinances.  There  is  not  an  intelli- 
munion,  &c.  ^^^^  Protestant  in  the  world,  who  does  not 

hold  that  what  follows  from  the  express  Word,  "  by  good  and 
necessary  consequence,"  is  binding,  as  well  as  the  Word  itself. 
What  other  warrant  have  Immersionists  for  observing  the 
Lord's  day  as  a  Christian  Sabbath,  and  neglecting  the  seventh 
day?  What  warrant  for  admitting  females  to  the  Lord's 
table  ?  What  warrant  for  their  favourite  usage  of  strict  commu- 
nion ?     This,  pre-eminently,  is  only  a  deduction. 

The    presumption    against    the    Immersionist    is    greatly 

No  Clamour,  such  as  Strengthened  again,  in  my  view,  by  the  ex- 
Must  have  Arisen  at  Ex-  treme  improbability,  that  the  sweeping  revo- 
dusion  of  Infants.  i^^^^^   against   infant    Church   membersliip 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  78/ 

could  have  been  ^established  by  the  Apostles,  without  some 
such  clamour  as  would  have  been  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. We  must  remember  that  all  Hebrews  greatly  prized 
their  ecclesiastical  birth.  See  Matt,  iii  :  9  ;  Jno.  viii  :  33.  To 
be  cut  off  from  among  his  people,  was  to  the  Jew,  a  shameful 
and  dreaded  degradation.  The  uncircumcised  was  a  dog  to 
him,  unclean  and  despised.  We  have  evidence  enough  that  the 
believing  Hebrews  shared  these  feelings.  Hence,  when  we  saw 
that  even  believers  among  them  were  so  suspicious,  and  the 
unbelievers  full  of  rampant  jealousy,  and  eager  to  object  and 
revile  the  Nazarenes,  how  is  it  possible  that  this  great  abro- 
gation of  privilege  could  be  established,  while  we  hear  none  of 
that  clamour  which,  the  New  Testament  tells  us,  was  provoked 
hy  the  cessation  of  sacrifice,  purifications,  and  circumcision  ? 

But  the  Immersionist  may  rejoin  :  such  a  clamour  may  have 
existed,  and  it  may  be  omitted  in  the  sacred 
Arguel''''^'''^^^'"'°'''  history,  because  the  history  is  brief,  and  the 
purposes  of  inspiration  may  not  have  re- 
quired its  notice.  One  is  not  entitled  to  argue  from  the  absence 
of  proof     De  omni  ignoto  qiiasi  de  noii  existentibiis. 

I  reply :  we  are  not  arguing  herein  from  the  mere  absence 
of  proof;  for  we  give  high  probable  evidence  to  show  that  if 
the  fact  had  ever  occurred,  the  traces  of  it  must  have  been  pre- 
served. First :  Not  only  is  there  a  dead  silence  in  the  brief 
narrative  of  Scripture  concerning  any  objection  of  Jews,  such 
as  must  have  been  made  had  infant  membership  been  abro- 
gated ;  but  there  seems  to  be  an  equal  silence  in  the  Rabbinical 
literature  against  Christianity,  and  in  the  voluminous  polemical 
works,  from  the  days  of  Justin  Martyr — adversus  TrypJionem, 
down.  Second  :  The  objections,  restiveness,  and  attacks  grow- 
ing out  of  the  revolutionizing  of  other  things,  less  important 
than  infant  membership,  required  and  received  full  notice  in  the 
New  Testament.  Look  for  instance,  at  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, written  practically  with  this  main  object ;  to  obviate  the 
restiveness  and  tendency  to  revolt  produced  among  Jewish 
Christians,  by  the  abrogation  of  cherished  customs.  The  main 
line  of  argument  is  to  show  that  these  innovations  are  justifiable, 
and  scriptural ;  yet  there  is  not  one  word  to  excuse  this  momen- 
tous innovation  against  infant  membership !  Third :  The 
sacred  narrative  in  Acts  xvth  approaches  so  near  the  topic  of 
this  innovation,  that  it  is  simply  incredible  an  allusion  to  it 
should  have  been  avoided,  had  the  revolution  been  attempted. 
The  question  which  agitated  the  whole  Christian  community  to 
its  core  was  :  shall  Gentile  converts,  entering  the  Church  under 
the  new  dispensation,  be  required  to  be  circumcised,  and  keep 
the  ceremonial  law  ?  The  very  arguments  by  which  this  ques- 
tion was  debated  are  given.  Now,  how  inevitable  would  it 
have  been,  had  the  change  in  membership  been  made,  which 
the  Immersionist  supposes,  to  say  :  "  Whether  you  circumcise 


788  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

adult  Gentile  converts,  or  not ;  you  cannot  circumcise  their 
children ;  because  Jewish  children  and  Gentile,  are  no  longer 
admitted  with  their  parents."  But  there  is  no  whisper  of  this 
point  raised.  I  cannot  believe  the  innovation  had  been  attempted. 
But  if  it  had  not  been  made  at  that  stage,  it  was  never  made  at 
all  by  divine  authority  ;  for  the  Immersionist  professes  to  find  it 
in  Christ's  commission  at  His  ascension. 

Paedobaptist  writers  are   accustomed  to  attach  importance 

to  that  great  Commission.     See  Matt,  xxviii : 

T  5-  Great  Commission  ^o  :  Mark  xvi  :  K,  16  ;  Luke  xxiv  :  47- 

Implies  PEedo-Baptism.  ,  11  •  1  ^      ( 

49.     As    we    have    already    considered    the 

supposed  evidence  for  exclusive  believer's  baptism  in  Mark  xvi : 

16,  we  may  take  the  language  of  Matthew  as  most  explicit  and 

full,  of  the  three  places.     We  consider  that  the  Apostles  would 

naturally  have  understood  such  a  commission  to  include  infants, 

for  the  following  reasons  : 

The  first  thing  told  them  is  to  go,  and  "  teach"  more  prop- 
erly, "  disciple"  {/j-afh^Tsuaazi)  all  nations.  Here,  says  the  Im- 
mersionist, is  strong  evidence  that  only  believer's  baptism  is 
enjoined,  because  they  are  to  be  taught  first,  and  then  baptized  ; 
whereas  infants  cannot  be  taught.  The  argument  is  unfortu- 
nately founded  only  on  a  failure  to  examine  the  original.  For 
this  turns  it  against  the  Immersionist.  The  term  "  disciple,"  is 
eminently  appropriate  to  the  conception  of  a  school  of  Christ, 
which  is  one  of  the  Bible  conceptions  of  the  Church.  See  Gen. 
xviii  :  19  ;  Deut.  vi  :  7  ;  Is.  ii  :  3,  &c.  The  young  child  is 
entered  or  enrolled  at  this  school,  before  his  religious  education 
begins,  in  order  that  he  may  learn  afterwards.     Matt,  xxviii  :  20. 

Second :  what  would  a  mind  free  from  immersionist  pre- 
conceptions naturally  understand  by  the  command  to  "  disciple 
all  nations  ?"  Does  not  this  include  the  infant  children,  as  a 
part  thereof?  But  we  must  remember,  that  the  minds  ot  the 
disciples  were  not  only  free  from  these  prejudices,  but  accus- 
tomed to  the  Church-membership  of  infants.  They  had  known 
nothing  else  but  a  Church-State  in  which  the  children  went  along 
with  their  parents.  It  seems  then,  that  they  would  almost  inevi- 
tably understand  such  a  command,  as  including  the  authority  to 
baptire  infants,  unless  instructed  to  the  contrary.  Nor  is  this 
all :  these  disciples  were  accustomed  to  see  cases  of  disciple- 
ship  to  Judaism  occurring  from  time  to  time.  Proselytes  were 
not  unusual.  See  Matt,  xxiii  :  15  ;  Acts  vi  :  5  ;  ii  :  10  ;  xiii  : 
43,  and  the  uniform  custom  was  to  circumcise  the  children  and 
receive  them  into  the  Jewish  community,  on  the  profession  of 
the  father.  So  that,  if  we  set  aside  for  the  present,  the  question 
whether  proselyte  baptism  was  as  yet  practiced,  it  is  clear  the 
Apostles  must  be  led  by  all  they  had  been  accustomed  to  wit- 
ness, to  suppose  that  their  converts  were  to  bring  in  their  chil- 
dren along  with  them ;  unless  the  notion  were  contradicted  by 
Christ.     Where  is  the  contradiction  of  it? 


LECTURE  LXVI. 

SUBJECTS  OF   BAPTISM.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

6.  What  weight  is  to  be  attached  to  the  prevalence  of  Proselyte  Baptism  among 
the  Jews,  as  evidence  for  infant  baptism  ? 

See  Dr.  L.  Woods'  Lect.  112.     Knapp's  Christian  Theol.  ^  138.     Wall's  Hist. 
Infant  Bap.      Jahn's  Archaeology,  §  325. 

7.  State  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  from  the  baptism  of  houses. 
Armstrong,   pt.  iii,   ch.  8.     Dr.  Woods'. Lect.    114.      Taylor's  Apostol,  Bap. 
pp.  28  to  68. 

8.  Argue  infant  baptism  from  the  titles  and  treatment  addressed  to  Christian  chil- 
dren in  the  New  Testament. 

See  Annstrong,  pt.  iii,  ch.  7.     Woods'  Lect.   115,  pt.  i.     Taylor,  A  post.  Bapt. 
pp.   ICHD-112. 

9.  What  historical  evidence  can  be. given  for  the  prevalence  of  infant  baptism 
from  the  Apostles'  days  downward  ? 

Woods'  Lect.   116.     Coleman,    Ancient  Christianity  Exemphfied,  ch.  19,  §6. 
Bingham's  Origines  Sacris.     Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap. 

10.  Refute  the  objection   that  infant  baptism   corrupts   the   spirituality   of   the 
Church  by  introducing  unsanctified  members. 

Woods  Lect.  117.     Mason  on  the  Church,  Essays  6  and  7. 

11.  What  the  relations  of  baptized  children  to  the  Church,  and  what  the  practical 
benefits  thereof? 

Drs.  Woods'  and  Mason,  as  above.     So.  Presbn.  Rev.  April  1859. 

TT  has  been  fashionable  of  late  years  for  learned  Paedobaptists 
(e.  g.,  Dr.  J.  A.  Alexander)  to  doubt  whether  the  Jews  prac- 
6.  Aro-ument  from  ticed  proselyte  family  baptism  as  early  as  the 
Proselyte  Baptism  of  Christian  era  ;  because,  they  say,  it  was  first 
J^^^-  asserted  in  the  Talmud  (of  6th  century)  and 

these  writers  are  unscrupulous.  I  see  not  why  we  may  not  in 
this  case  believe,  because  they  are  supported  thus  :  (see  Dr. 
Woods).  They  uniformly  assert  the  antiquity  of  the  usage. 
The  usage  is  naturally  deducible  from  Levitical  purifications. 
It  accounts  for  John's  baptism  being  received  with  such  facility, 
while  neither  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  in  Josephus,  is  any 
surprise  expressed  at  his  baptizing  as  a  novelty.  Jews  certainly 
did  practise  proselyte  baptism  at  a  later  day,  and  it  can  hardly 
be  supposed  that  they  borrowed  it  from  the  hated  Christians. 
If  they  even  did,  it  proves  a  prevalence  of  usage  before  they 
borrowed.  Last :  it  does  not  seem  very  likely  that  such  a  pre- 
tence, if  first  invented  in  the  Talmud,  would  have  escaped 
denial  by  some  earlier  Christian  or  Jewish  Christian. 

Now,  if  apostles  were  accustomed  to  see  families  baptized 
into  Judaism,  it  was  very  likely  that  they  would  understand  the 
command  to  go  and  proselyte  all  peoples  to  Christianity  and 
baptize  them,  as  including  whole  families. 

Had  the  English  version  been  accurate  in  the  employment 

of  the    words    house    or/.o^  household   or/J.a, 

Baptis^'fTlSusS'.''"'    our  argument  on  this  point  would  appear  in 

it  more  just.     According  to  the  definition  of 

789 


790  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Aristotle,  and  well-defined  classic  and  Hebraistic  usage,  the 
word  oc'y.o^  means  literally,  the  apartments  inhabited  by  the 
parents  and  children,  and  ocxca,  literally,  the  curtilage.  Figu- 
ratively, the  former,  the  family;  the  latter,  the  houshold.  And 
the  idea  which  constitutes  the  former  a  house  is  lineage.  It  is 
by  birth  of  infants  the  house  is  built  up ;  so  that  the  word  may 
more  naturally  mean  young  children  distinguished  from  parents 
than  vice  've7'sa.  A  house  is  a  cluster  of  one  lineage,  receiving 
accretion  by  birth  and  growth  of  children.  So  that  when  it  is 
said  in  the  New  Testament  that  the  ouoz  was  baptized  (never 
the  or/Ja),  the  presence  of  children  is  forcibly  implied.  This 
distinction  in  usage  is  always  carefully  observed  in  the  New 
Testament  as  to  the  figurative  sense  of  the  two  words,  often  as 
to  the  literal.  E.  g..  Acts  xvi :  31-34  (Greek);  i  Cor.  i  :  16,. 
with  xvi:  15;  Phil,  iv:  22.  The  argument  is  miserably  ob- 
scured in  the  English  version.  Now,  while  some  eight  Chris- 
tian houses  are  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  (who  presum- 
ably were  baptized  houses),  four  such  are  explicitly  mentioned 
as  baptized.  Cornelius',  Acts  x :  2,  44,48;  Lydia's,  xvi:  15;. 
the  Philippian  jailor's,  xvi :  33  ;  Stephanas',  i  Cor.  i :  16.  Now, 
on  the  fact  that,  among  the  very  few  separate  individual  bap- 
tisms mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  four  were  of  families, 
is  ground  of  two-fold  probability :  that  there  were  young  chil- 
dren in  some  of  them,  who  were  baptized  on  their  parents'  faith, 
and  that  this  sacramental  recognition  of  the  parental  and  fam- 
ily relation,  looks  like  Pedobaptism  amazingly.  Immersionists 
do  not  use  such  language ,  so  that  even  if  it  could  be  proved 
there  probably  were  no  young  unconverted  children,  the  argu- 
ment remains. 

They  say  they  can  prove  in  each  case  there  were  none  : 
Cornelius'  by  verses  2,  44.  But  see  Gen. 
e^ChuSr" '"'''"  xviii:i9;  2  Chron.  xx:i3;  Ezra  viii:2i; 
Matt,  xxi :  15,  16.  That  Lydia's  house  were 
all  believing  adult  children,  or  servants,  or  apprentices,  they 
argue  from  Acts  xvi: 40,  "brethren."  But  see  verses  14,  15,. 
nobody's  faith  is  mentioned  but  Lydia's;  and  doubtless  Paul 
had  many  other  converts  out  of  Lydia's  house.  The  proof  is, 
that  the  whole  context  shows  the  meeting  in  verse  40  was  a 
public  one,  not  a  family  one ;  and  the  Philippian  church,  a 
flourishing  body  was  now  planted. 

That  the  jailor's  family  all  believed  is  argued  from  verse 
34.  But  the  original  places  the  Tzauor/J.  with  rejoiced.  That 
Stephanas'  family  were  all  baptized  and  believers,  is  argued 
from  I  Cor.  xvi:  15.  Answer:  It  was  his  nr/.ta  not  his  or/.oz 
which  engaged  in  ministrations  of  Christian  hospitality. 

An  argument  of  equal,  or  perhaps  greater  importance  is  to 

8.    Infants  are  Ad-    be  derived  from  the  addressing  of  the  titles 

dressed    as     Church-    of  Church-members  to  little  children  in  the 

members.  ^^^   Testament.      That    the    words  "Artoc,. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  79 1 

TTca-o:;,  or  7::(TTiucova.nd\4dc?.(f  6^  are  the  current  words  employed 
to  denote  professed  Christians,  will  not  be  denied.  "  Chris- 
tians "  is  only  used  two  or  three  times.  The  address  of  epis- 
tles to  these  titles  is  equivalent  to  their  address  to  professed 
Church-members.  Now  in  these  cases  we  find  children  ad- 
dressed in  the  epistles.  Eph.  vi:i-4;  Col.  iii :  20 ;  1  John 
ii:  12,  13,  Tsxvia,  -acoia.  First,  these  were  not  adult  children, 
Further,  in  Titus  1:5,  they  are  expressly  called  rexvamard. 

The  Bishop's  Chil-  Compare  for  illustration,  in  i  Tim.  vi :  2, 
dren  Must  be  Mem-  IlcaTolx;  deoTiozac,  and  I  Tim.  iii :  4,  parallel 
^^^^-  passage  where  the  Bishop's  children   being 

TLcara  and  ev  u7:o~a)'yj,  is  equivalent  to  being  well  ruled,  and  in 
subjection.  If  the  alternative  be  taken  that  Titus'  zt/.ua  T.taxa 
mean  adult  children  who  are  professors,  on  their  own  behalf,  of 
godliness,  we  are  led  into  absurdities;  for  what  must  be  de- 
cided of  the  man  whose  children  are  yet  small ;  and  who  being 
therefore  in  the  prime  of  manhood,  is  fit  to  serve  the  Church  ? 
Shall  he  wait,  though  otherwise  fit,  till  it  be  seen  whether  his 
children  will  be  converted  ?  Or  if  the  children  be  already 
come  to  ages  of  intelligence,  and  not  converted,  in  spite  of  the 
Father's  good  rearing,  must  he  be  refused  ordination  ?  This 
would  have  excluded  Legh  Richmond,  and  many  ministers 
blessed  of  God.  The  obvious  sense  is,  the  bishop's  children 
must  be  consecrated  and  reared  accordingly. 

As  the  historical  evidence  for  the  early  and  constant  prev- 

9.  Authorities  on  Pa-  ^lence  of  infant  baptism  is  so  well  unfolded 
tristic  Baptism.  Re-  in  Coleman,  Woods,  Bingham  and  Wall,  and 
mari^s^  1st.  Infant  Bap-  as  your  Church  History  enters  fully  into  it,  I 
tism  Larly  Mentioned.       in         ,  •       i    .    -i    /i  -^  i      ,        i  i 

shall  not  agam  detail  the  witnesses ;  but  add 
some  remarks  to  sum  up.  And  first,  Bingham  and  Wall,  be- 
tween them,  mention  nine  fathers,  of  the  first  and  second  cen- 
turies, who  seem  pretty  clearly  to  allude  to  infant  baptism  ; 
some  briefly  and  singly,  others  clearly  and  more  than  once.  Now 
Mosheim's  list  of  the  genuine  Fathers  who  wrote  before  A.  D. 
200,  is  only  about  12  (Clement,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Pseudo 
Barnabas,  Pastor  of  Hermas,  Ep.  to  Diognetus,  (probably  Jus- 
tin's), Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  Clem.  Alexandrinus,  Tertullian),  if  we  omit  12  or. 15 
more,  whose  names  and  w^orks  are  only  made  known  to  us  by 
other  Fathers  who  speak  of  them.  And  his  list  is  nearly  ex- 
haustive. Now  seeing  that  few  of  these  works  are  voluminous, 
and  that  some  are  mere  fragments ;  and  seeing  that  if  our 
theory  of  Pedobaptism  is  correct,  it  was  a  subject  which  did 
not  need  much  agitation,  as  being  undisputed  and  of  ancient 
establishment ;  here  is  fully  as  much  notice  of  it  as  was  reason- 
ably to  be  expected.  After  A.  D.  200,  the  notices  are  abun- 
dant. 

The   enumerations    of  heresies,    and  refutations  of    them 


792  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

2d.  Denial  of  it  Not  drawn  up  by  Irenaeus,  Epiphanius,  Philas- 
Mentionedof  AnyHer-  trius,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  (Epiphanius,  for 
^^^^'  instance ;     against   80  heresies),    contain    no 

reference  to  any  heretics  who  denied  infant  baptism,  except 
those  (as  some  Gnostic  sects)  who  denied  all  baptism.  And 
Peter  de  Bruys  is  said  to  be  the  first  sectary  who  ever  denied  it. 
In  the  controversy  between  Augustine  and  Pelagians, 
3d.  Not  Refused  even  ^^e  latter  were  much  pressed  with  the  argu- 
by  Pelagians,  Under  ment :  "  If  infants  have  neither  depravity  nor 
the  Strongest  Induce-    guilty    why   baptize  them  ?  "      Their    answer 

was,  to  gain  for  them  heaven,  instead  of  eter- 
nal life.  They  would  have  gladly  given  the  more  satisfactory 
answer,  if  it  had  been  true,  that  infant  baptism  was  an  innova- 
tion. But  they  do  no.t.  Celestius,  it  is  stated,  repudiated  the 
insinuation  that  his  doctrine  would  lead  to  the  denial  of  infant 
baptism,  saying,  he  had  never  known  any  sect  wicked  enough 
for  this.      He  and  Pelagius  were  learned  and  traveled. 

In    the  Roman   Catacombs,  among    the  many    interesting 

remains,  are  inscriptions  over  the  graves  of 
Catic^mb?^'"''^ '"  *^    infants  and   young  children,  who   are  said  to 

be  baptized,  and  called  "faithful,"  "believ- 
ers," "brothers,"  while  they  are  said  to  be  of  ages  varying 
from  18  months  to  12  years. 

Infant  communion,  which  Immersionists  love  to  class  as  an 

equal  and  similar   superstition  to  infant  bap- 
ion'      "  ^"    ommun-    ^jg^n^    jg   a   clear  proof  of  the   earlier  preva- 
lence   of     the    latter.        For    the    primitive 
Church  never  gave  the  Lord's  Supper  before  baptism. 

But  we    do   not    rely   on   the   patristic   testimony    as    our 

decisive  argument,  but  on  Scripture.  The 
Authority  [o  us.°"   "°    Church    early    became    superstitious ;     and 

many  of  their  superstitions,  as  baptismal 
regeneration  and  infant  communion,  they  profess  to  base  on 
Scripture.  But  where  they  do  so,  we  can  usually  trace  and 
expose  their  misunderstanding  of  it.  This  current  and  early 
testimony  is  relied  on,  not  as  proving  by  itself  that  we  are  war- 
ranted to  baptize  infa  nts,  but  as  raising  a  strong  probability 
that  it  was  an  apostolic  usage,  and  thus  supporting  our  scrip- 
tural argument. 

Immersionists    object    vehemently  to   infant   baptism   and 
10.  Does    Infant    membership,  that  it  floods  the  spirituality  of 
Baptism  Corrupt  the    Christ's  Church  with  a  multitude  of  worldly, 
^^"'^'^^*  nominal  Christians.     One  of  them  has  writ- 

ten a  book  on  "the  evils  of  infant  baptism."  They  point  to 
the  lamentable  state  of  religion  in  Europe,  in  the  Papacy,  and 
in  the  Oriental  Churches,  as  the  legitimate  result.  They  urge : 
If  our  Confession  and  Government  are  correct  in  saying,  '  all 
baptized  persons  are  members  of  the  Church,'  &c.,  (Bk.  Disc. 
Ch.  I,  §  6),    consistency  would  lead   us,   of  course,   to   admit 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  793 

them,  without  saving  change,  to  suffrage,  to  office,  and  to  seal- 
ing ordinances ;  we  should  baptize  their  children  in  turn  (as 
Methodists,  Episcopalians,  Papists  do),  and  thus  the  whole 
world  would  be  brought  unsanctified  into  the  Church,  obliter- 
ating its  spirituality.  But  Christ  intended  it  to  be  composed 
only  of  His  converted  followers.  The  only  reason  why  Pres- 
byterian and  other  Churches  in  America,  do  not  exhibit  these 
abominable  results  is,  that  they  do  not  act  out  their  creeds,  and 
practically  regard  the  unconverted  baptized  as  no  members. 
I  reply : 

The  notion  that  Christ  would  organize  His  religious  king- 
ist.  Mixture  in  the    dom  on  earth  in  contrast  to  human  society, 
Church   Foreseen    by    admitting  none  but  pure  members,  is  plausi- 
^^^"^'^-  ble   and   pretty.     Yea,   the   unthinking   may 

reason,  that  as  He  is  autocrat,  heart-searching,  almighty.  His 
voluntary  embracing  of  any  impure  material  would  look  like  a 
voluntary  connivance  at  sin,  and  indifference  to  that  sanctity 
which  the  Church  was  formed  to  promote.  But  it  is  a  Utopian 
and  unscriptural  dream.  See  Matt,  xiii  :  24  and  47.  Christ 
has  not  even  formed  the  hearts  of  His  own  people  thus;  but 
permits  evil  to  mix  with  them.  A  Church  to  be  administered 
by  human  hands  must  be  mixed ;  anything  else  is  but  a  dis- 
honest pretense,  even  among  Immersionists.  Christ  permits  a 
mixed  body,  not  because  He  likes  it,  but  because  His  wisdom 
sees  it  best  under  the  circumstances. 

It  is  not  fair  to  argue  from  the  abuse,  but  from  proper  use 

of  an  institution.  Note  :  God's  arrangement 
.efctfup?ro1h?iS' under  the  old  dispensation  was  liable  to  the 

same  evils,  for  infant  Church-membership 
abused  certainly  led  there  to  horrid  corruptions.  The  wide 
corruptions  of  Popish  and  other  European  Churches  are  not 
traceable  to  proper  use  of  infant  baptism,  but  to  other  manifest 
causes :  neglect  of  youthful  training,  State  establishments. 
Paganism  infused,  hierarchical  institutions,  &c.  If  infant  mem- 
bership were  the  great  corrupter,  and  its  absence  the  great 
safeguard,  immersed  Churches  ought  to  be  uniformly  pure. 
How  is  this?  It  is  an  invidious  task  to  make  the  inquiry;  but 
it  is  their  own  test.  Look,  then,  at  Ironsides,  Dunkers,  Mor- 
mons, African  Churches  in  America.  We  shall  not  be  so 
uncharitable  as  to  charge  all  this  on  immersion. 

Enough  for  us  to  answer  for  our  own  principles,  not  those 

of  Papists,  Episcopalians,  Methodists.  We 
3r  .  a  eguar  s.  grated  our  limitations  on  infant  baptism. 
Where  they  are  observed,  and  the  duties  pledged  in  the  sacra- 
ment are  tolerably  performed,  it  results  in  high  benefit.  When 
we  teach  that  all  baptized  persons  "should  perform  all  the 
duties  of  Church-members,"  it  is  not  meant  with  unconverted 
hearts.  The  Church  states  the  great  Bible  doctrine  that  in 
baptism  renewing  graces  are  promised  and  sealed ;  and  if  the 


794 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


adult  does  not  get  them,  it  is  his  fault.  Our  doctrine  does  not 
break  down  the  distinction  made  between  spiritual  and  carnal 
by  sealing  ordinances  one  whit,  or  give  to  the  baptized  member 
one  particle  of  power  to  corrupt  the  suffrage  or  government  of 
the  Church. 

II.  The  remaining  cavils  are  best  answered  by  stating  the 
Scriptural  view  of  the  relation  of  unregenerate  baptized  chil- 
.  dren  to  the  Church,  and  the  benefits  thence  inuring. 

When  our  standards  say,  "  All  baptized  persons  are  mem- 

_     .     ,  ^  .      bers  of  the   Church,"  this  by  no  means  im- 

Baptized  Persons  in        ,.  ,,     .       ,.,,       ,11  i-  i- 

What  Sense?  Ill  us-  phes  their  title  to  all  sealing  ordinances, 
trated  by  Minors  in  suffrage,  and  office.  They  are  minor  citi- 
Commonwealth.  ^ens    in    the     ccclesiastical   commonwealth, 

under  tutelage,  training,  and  instruction,  and  government ; 
heirs,  if  they  will  exercise  the  graces  obligatory  on  them,  of 
all  the  ultimate  franchises  of  the  Church,  but  not  allowed  to 
enjoy  them  until  qualified.  Yet  they  are,  justly,  under  ecclesi- 
astical government.  The  reasonableness  of  this  position  is  well 
illustrated  by  that  of  minors  under  the  civil  commonwealth. 
These  owe  allegiance  and  obedience,  and  are  under  the  gov- 
ernment ;  they  are  made  to  pay  taxes,  to  testify  in  court,  and, 
after  a  time,  even  to  do  military  service  and  labour  on  the  high- 
way. They  can  be  tried  for  crimes,  and  even  capitally  pun- 
ished. But  they  may  neither  sit  as  judges  in  a  jury,  bear 
office,  nor  vote  for  officers,  until  a  full  age  is  supposed  to  con- 
fer the  necessary  qualification.  Such  must  be  the  regulations 
of  any  organized  society  which  embraces  (on  any  theory)  fam- 
ilies within  it.  And  if  the  family  is  conceived  as  the  integer  of 
which  the  society  is  constituted,  this  status  of  minor  members 
of  families  is  yet  more  proper,  yea,  unavoidable.  But  such  is 
precisely  the  conception  of  the  Scriptures,  concerning  the 
integers  of  which  both  the  State  and  Church  are  constituted. 
Now,  the  visible  Church  is  an  organized  human  society,  consti- 
tuted of  Christian  families  as  integers,  for  spiritual  ends — relig- 
ious instruction,  sanctification,  holy  living  and  glorification  of 
its  members.  Hence,  it  seems  most  reasonable  that  unregene- 
rate members  of  its  families  shall  be,  on  the  one  hand,  included 
under  its  government ;  and,  on  the  other,  not  endowed  with  its 
higher  franchises.  The  State,  whose  purposes  are  secular, 
fixed  the  young  citizen's  majority  when,  by  full  age,  he  is  pre- 
sumed to  have  that  bodily  and  mental  growth  of  the  adult, 
which  fits  him  for  his  duties.  The  Church  recognizes  the 
majority  of  its  minor  citizens  when  they  show  that  spiritual 
qualification — a  new  heart — necessary  for  handling  its  spiritual 
concernments.  The  Church  visible  is  also  a  school  of  Christ. 
Schools,  notoriously,  must  include  untaught  children.  That  is 
what  they  exist  for.  But  they  do  not  allow  these  children  to 
teach  and  govern  ;  they  are  there  to  be  taught  and  restrained. 
The  analogy  is  most  instructive. 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  795, 

The  Immersionist  says  that  our  communion  is  only  saved 
from  utter  corruption  by  our  own  inconsist- 
ur™'  ^^^^''°''  ^^^'  ency ;  that  while  our  constitution  calls  our 
children  Church  members,  we  fortunately 
treat  them,  as  they  do,  as  not  Church  members.  Whereas  the 
Immersionist  charges  us  with  a  wicked  inconsistency,  I  will 
retort  upon  him  the  charge  of  a  pious  one :  Those  of  them  who 
are  truly  good  people,  while  they  say  their  children  are  not 
Church  members,  fortunately  treat  them  as  though  they  were. 
They  diligently  bring  them  under  the  instructions,  restraints, 
and  prayers  of  the  Church  and  pastor.  Happily,  the  instincts 
and  influences  of  the  Christian  family  are  so  deeply  founded 
and  so  powerful,  that  a  perverse  and  unscriptural  theory  cannot 
arrest  them.  These  Christians  discard  the  Bible  conception  of 
the  visible  Church,  as  an  organized  body  whose  integers  are 
Christian  "houses,"  and  adopt  the  unscriptural  and  impractica- 
ble theory  of  a  visible  Church  organized  of  regenerate  indi- 
viduals. But,  blessed  be  God !  the  light  and  love  of  a  sancti- 
fied parent's  heart  are  too  strong  to  be  wholly  perverted  by  this 
theory ;  they  still  bring  the  family,  as  a  whole,  virtually  within 
the  Church.  And  this  is  the  reason  that  true  religion  is  perpet- 
uated among  them. 

But  a  more  definite  answer  may  be  desired  to  the  inquiry  : 
Discipline  Consists  What  are  the  precise  shape  and  extent  of 
in  Instruction  and  Re-  this  instruction  and  government,  which  con- 
^^^^^^-  stitute   the    Church's    "discipline"    over  its 

unregenerate  members  ?  To  give  a  clear  answer,  let  us  dis- 
tinguish the  instruction  from  the  restraint ;  the  two  together 
make  up  the  idea  of  discipline.  As  to  the  former,  the  teaching 
of  church-presbyters  and  catechists  is  by  no  means  to  super- 
sede that  of  the  parents,  but  only  to  assist  and  re-enforce  it. 
Into  the  sacred  relation  of  parent  and  child  no  other  human 
authority,  not  even  that  which  Christ  Himself  has  appointed  in 
His  Church,  may  intrude.  None  can  sufficiently  replace  it. 
But  all  these  baptized  members  are  the  "  charge  "  of  the  pastor 
and  session ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  these  "  overseers  "  to  provide 
for  them,  and  to  see  that  they  enjoy  the  public  and  social  in- 
structions of  the  gospel.  And  pastors  and  elders  should, 
moreover,  extend  to  them  that  advice  in  temptation,  and  those 
efforts  to  comfort  them  in  affliction,  and  to  secure  the  sanctifi- 
cation  of  their  trials,  which  they  extend  to  communing  members. 

As  to  the  ecclesiastical  control  or  restraint  over  these 
Restraint  Applied,  unregenerate  members,  I  remark,  first,  that 
First,  Through  Pa-  the  rule  of  morals  should  be  the  same  as  that 
rents.  The  Rule  of  imposed  on  Communicating  members,  save 
^^'"^'  that  the   former  are   not  to  be   forced,   nor 

even  permitted,  without  spiritual  qualification,  to  take  part  in 
sealing  ordinances,  and  church-powers.  [But  as  to  their  neg- 
lect of  these,  they  should  be  constantly  taught  that  their  dis- 


7q6  syllabus  and  notes 

qualification  is  their  fault,  and  not  their  misfortune  merely ;  a 
sinful  exercise  of  their  free-agency,  a  subject  for  personal  and 
present  repentance  ;  a  voluntary  neglect  and  rejection  of  sav- 
ing graces,  the  sincere  offer  whereof  was  sealed  to  them  in  their 
baptism.  And  for  this,  their  sin  of  heart,  the  Church  utters  a 
continuous,  a  sad  and  affectionate,  yet  a  righteous  censure,  in 
keeping  them  in  the  state  of  minor  members.]  The  propriety 
of  exacting  the  same  rule  of  living,  in  other  respects,  appears 
thus  :  Christ  has  but  one  law  for  man ;  these  baptized  members 
are  consecrated  and  separated  to  Christ's  service  in  the  Church 
as  truly  as  the  communicating  members ;  they  owe  the  same 
debt  of  devotion  for  the  mercies  of  redemption ;  which  are 
their  offered  heritage.  Hence,  it  should  be  constantly  taught 
them  that  questionable  worldly  amusements,  for  instance,  are 
as  inconsistent  in  them  as  in  other  Church  members.  In  a  word, 
the  end  of  this  Church  authority,  under  which  Providence  has 
placed  them,  is  to  constrain  them  to  live  Christian  lives,  in 
order  that  thereby  they  may  come  unto  the  Christian  graces  in 
the  heart. 

Second,  as  to  the  means  of  enforcement  of  that  rule,  I 
would  answer ;  that  in  the  case  of  all  baptized  members  of  im- 
mature age,  and  especially  of  such  as  are  still  in  the  houses, 
and  under  the  government,  of  parents,  the  Church-Session 
ought  mainly  to  restrain  them  through  their  parents.  That  is, 
the  authority  of  these  rulers  should  be  applied  to  the  parents, 
to  cause  them,  by  their  domestic  authority,  to  lead  outward 
Christian  lives,  and  attend  upon  the  means  of  grace.  And  the 
refusal  or  neglect  of  parents  to  do  this  duty,  may  doubtless  sub- 
ject them  to  just  Church  censure.  Perhaps  we  may  safely  say, 
that  the  Session  should  reach  this  class  of  baptized  members 
only  through  their  parents,  except  in  the  case  where  the  par- 
ents themselves  refer  the  child's  contumacy  to  the  eldership. 
In  this  case  the  eldership  may  undoubtedly  proceed  to  censure 
the  recusant  child.  See  an  analogous  case  in  the  theocracy, 
Deut.  xxi  :  i8,  &c. 

If  these  baptized,    unregenerate  members   are   fully  adult, 

If  Adult    the   Re-    ^"^  passed   from   parental  control,  then  the 

straint  is  Direct.     It    Church-Session     must   apply   their   restraint 

May  Proceed  to  Ex-    directly  to  them.      The  mere  continuance  of 

communicate.  ^.^      •  ca.i.-         ^.i.  r 

their  unregeneracy,  unnttmg  them  lor  com- 
munion, will  of  course  be  no  suitable  ground  for  judicial  prose- 
cution. For  the  Church  is  already  uttering  her  standing  cen- 
sure against  this,  in  their  exclusion  from  the  Lord's  table.  If 
they  become  wayward  in  outward  conduct,  then  the  Session, 
in  addition  to  their  constant  and  affectionate  admonitions 
against  their  impenitence,  should  administer  paternal  cautions, 
advice,  and  entreaty,  looking  towards  a  reformation.  But  if 
they  persist  in  flagrant  and  indecent  sins,  such  as  the  persistent 
neglect  of  all  ordinances,  sensualit}',  blasphemy,  or  dishonesty, 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  797 

(such  sins  as  would  bring  on  a  communing  member  excommu- 
nication), then  nothing  remains  but  that  the  Session  shall  pro- 
ceed, by  judicial  prosecution,  to  cut  the  reprobate  member  off 
from  the  Church. 

Not  only  the  Scriptures,  but  common  sense,  justify  this 
Some  Fair  Way  view.  Are  they  "  members  of  the  Church  ?  " 
Must  be  Provided  to  (in  the  minor  sense).  Then  natural  justice- 
Cut  Off  the  Reprobate,  teaches  that  they  cannot  be  stripped  of  the 
privileges  of  that  membership,  be  they  what  they  may,  without 
a  fair  opportunity  for  defence,  and  confronting  the  accusing 
witnesses.  To  judge  a  man  without  formal  hearing  is  iniquity. 
On  the  other  hand,  are  they,  in  any  sense,  "  members  of  the 
Church?"  Then,  to  that  degree,  the  Church  is  responsible  for 
their  discredit,  and  subject  to  the  scandal  of  their  irregularities. 
Common  sense  says,  then,  that  there  must  be  a  fair  way  for  the 
Church  to  obtain  a  formal  severance  of  the  membership,  and 
publicly  cleanse  herself  of  the  scandal  of  this  contumacious 
member.  That  way  can  be  none  other  than  judicial  prosecu- 
tion. Finally,  when  a  member  is  so  thoroughly  reprobate  that, 
to  human  apprehension,  there  is  no  chance  of  his  receiving  any 
of  the  ends  of  a  Church  connection,  there  ought  to  be  a  way 
to  terminate  it;  it  has  become  objectless.  Three  objections 
are  urged  against  the  judicial  prosecution  of  such  members. 
I.  That  its  extremest  sentence  could  only  place  them  where 
they  already  are ;  self-excluded  from  full  communion.  I 
answer,  this  is  clearly  an  oversight.  This  form  of  discipline 
will,  of  course,  only  be  applied  in  cases  of  flagrant  immorality; 
and  then,  it  will  do  an  entirely  different  thing  from  this  self- 
exclusion  :  it  will  sever  the  minor  membership,  and  rid  the 
Church,  until  the  culprit  repents,  of  the  scandal  of  his  connec- 
tion. It  is  argued,  second,  that  judicial  discipline  is  utterly 
inappropriate,  where  there  is  not  even  the  profession  of  spirit- 
ual life.  "It  is  like  tieing  a  corpse  to  a  whipping-post."  That 
this  is  erroneous,  is  proved  by  every  case  of  excommunication ; 
for  this  extreme  measure  is  always  justified  by  the  plea,  that  the 
man  discloses  himself  to  be  unregenerate.  Third  :  It  is  argued 
that  judicial  discipline  is  irrelevant  to  baptized  members;  be- 
cause they  are  not  the  essential,  but  the  accidental  constituents 
of  a  visible  Church.  The  fact  is  admitted  ;  but  it  is  irrelevant. 
There  could  be  a  commonweath  without  minor  citizens,  but  if 
there  are  minor  citizens  they  must  be  judged  as  to  their  right  to 
their  lesser  franchise,  as  other  citizens  are.  No  youth  of  six- 
teen years  in  Virginia  would  think  it  just  to  be  hung  or  banished 
without  trial,  because  he  was  not  "  of  age  ;  "  nor  would  the 
commonwealth  deem  that  a  sufficient  reason  to  let  him  rob  and 
murder  with  impunity.  In  fine,  the  practice  of  at  least  some 
of  the  Reformed  Churches  once  illustrated  the  benefits  of  this 
position. 

On   this   statement  of  the  matter,  it  is  obvious   that  the 


798  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

usage  in  our  churches  has  fallen  exceedingly 
qu?nt  ^'""^^  ^^^''"  far  from  the  Bible  rule,  and  that  the  taunts 
of  the  Immersionists  are  to  a  great  degree 
well  founded  :  that  we  are  not  consistent  in  our  paedobaptism. 
And  it  may  be,  that  the  leavening  of  men's  minds,  in  this 
country,  with  the  unscriptural  ideas  of  the  Immersionists  may 
have  produced  a  license  of  feeling  among  youths,  which  greatly 
increases  the  difficulty  of  Church  Sessions'  doing  their  whole 
duty.  It  may,  indeed,  be  almost  impossible  for  any  single  Ses- 
sion to  do  it  among  us,  in  the  face  of  this  unfortunate  corrup- 
tion of  society,  and  of  the  obstinate  neglect  of  all  sister 
Church  Sessions  around  them.  But  the  question  for  the  honest 
mind  is :  Should  a  corrupt  practice  continue  to  preclude  a  right 
principle?  Or  should  the  correct  principle  amend  the  vicious 
practice  ?  And  the  happy  example  of  many  of  the  Reformed 
Churches  teaches  us  that  this  discipline  of  baptized  members  is 
feasible,  reasonable,  and  most  profitable.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Holland,  for  instance,  in  its  better  days;  and  the 
Evangelical  Church  of  Holland  now,  uniformly  governs  their 
children  on  the  Scriptural  principles  above  described. 

The  benefits  of  infant  baptism,  and  of  this  form  of  mem- 
Benefits  of  the  Bible    bership   for  the  children   of  God's  believing 
Plan— Children  of  the    people,   are  great.     Some   of  them   are  very 
Church  its  Hope.  forcibly  set  forth  by  Dr.  John  M.  Mason,  in 

his  invaluable  treatise  on  the  Church,  Borrowing  in  part  from 
him,  I  would  remark,  that  this  relation  to  the  Church,  and  this 
discipline,  are,  first,  in  exact  harmony  with  the  great  fact  of  ex- 
perience, that  the  children  of  God's  people  are  the  great  hope 
of  the  Church's  increase.  This  being  a  fact,  it  is  obviously  wis- 
dom to  organize  the  Church  with  reference  to  it,  so  as  to  pro- 
vide every  proper  means  of  training  for  working  up  this  the 
most  hopeful  material  for  Zion's  increase.  To  neglect  this  ob- 
vious policy  seems,  indeed,  little  short  of  madness.  As  we 
have  seen,  Immersionists'  communions  only  enjoy  true  pros- 
perity, in  virtue  of  their  virtual  employment  of  the  principle  of 
infant  Church-membership ;  grace  and  love  being  in  them 
fortunately,  stronger  than  a  bad  theory. 

Second :  This  Bible  plan  is  in  strict  conformity  with  those 
The  Bible  Plan  Agrees  doctrines  of  grace,  and  principles  of  human 
with  Nature  and  Grace,  nature,  whicli  God  employs  for  the  sanctifi- 
Prov.  xxii:6.  cation  of  His  people.     Our  theory  assumes 

that  God's  covenant  is  with  His  people  and  their  seed.  (Acts 
ii  :  39).  That  their  seed  are  heirs  of  the  promises  made  to  the 
fathers  (Acts  iii  :  25) :  that  the  cause  which  excludes  any  such 
from  saving  interest  in  redemption  is  voluntary  and  criminal, 
viz.,  unbelief  and  impenitence — a  cause  which  they  are  all 
bound  to  correct  at  once,  if  they  are  arrived  at  the  years  of 
discretion;  that  the  continuance  of  this  cause,  however  just  a 
reason  for  the   eldership's  excluding  them  from  certain  privi- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  799 

leges  and  functions,  is  no  justification  whatever  for  their  neglect- 
ing them.  And,  above  all,  does  our  plan  found  itself  on  the 
great  rule  of  experience,  common  sense,  and  Scripture,  that  if 
you  would  form  a  soul  to  the  hearty  embracing  of  right  prin- 
ciples, you  must  make  him  observe  the  conduct  which  those 
principles  dictate.  Every  faithful  parent  in  the  world  acts  on 
this  rule  in  rearing  his  children.  If  the  child  is  untruthful, 
unsympathizing,  unforgiving,  indolent,  he  compels  him,  while 
young,  to  observe  a  course  of  truth,  charity,  forgiveness  and 
industry.  Why  ?  Because  the  parent  considers  that  the  out- 
ward observance  of  these  virtues  will  be  either  permanent  or 
praiseworthy  if,  when  the  child  becomes  a  man,  he  only  observes 
them  from  fear  or  hypocrisy?  Not  at  all;  but  because  the 
parent  knows,  that  human  nature  is  moulded  by  habits  ;  that 
the  practice  of  a  principle  always  strengthens  it ;  that  this  use 
of  his  parental  authority  is  the  most  natural  and  hopeful  means 
to  teach  the  child  heartily  to  prefer  and  adopt  the  right  prin- 
ciple, when  he  becomes  his  own  man ;  that  it  would  be  the 
merest  folly  to  pretend  didactically  to  teach  the  child  the  right, 
and  leave  all-powerful  Habit  to  teach  him  the  wrong,  and  to  let 
the  child  spend  his  youth  in  riveting  the  bonds  of  bad  habit, 
which,  if  he  is  ever  to  adopt  and  love  the  right  principle,  he 
must  break.  Will  not  our  heavenly  Father  act  on  the  same  rule 
of  good  sense  toward  His  children  ?  Is  not  the  professed  prin- 
ciple of  the  Immersionist  just  the  folly  we  have  described  ? 
Happily,  Scripture  agrees  with  all  experience  and  practical 
wisdom,  in  saying  that  if  you  wish  a  child  to  adopt  and  love  the 
principles  of  a  Church-member  when  he  is  grown,  3'ou  must 
make  him  behave  as  a  Church-member  while  he  is  growing. 

Third :  Many  collateral  advantages  are  gained  by  this 
minor  citizenship  of  the  baptized  in  the 
van  ages.  Q-^m.,;,]-^^  They  are  retained  under  whole- 
some restraints.  Their  carnal  opposition  to  the  truth  is  greatly 
disarmed  by  early  association.  The  numerical  and  pecuniary 
basis  of  the  Church's  operations  is  widened.  And  where  the 
sealing  ordinances  are  properly  guarded,  these  advantages  are 
gained  without  any  compromise  of  the  Church's  spirituality. 
Paedobaptist  communities  which  are  scripturally  conducted  pre- 
sent as  high  a  grade  of  purity,  even  including  their  baptized 
members,  as  any  others.  For,  on  this  corrupt  earth,  the  best 
communion  is  far  from  being  what  it  ought  to  be.  Where  the 
duties  represented  in  the  sacrament  of  baptism  are  properly 
followed  up,  the  actual  regeneration  of  children  is  the  ordinary 
result. 


LECTURE  LXVn. 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 


SYLLABUS. 

See  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  29  with  Catechisms. 

1.  Give  a  definition  of  this  sacrament,  with  tlie  Scriptural  account  of  its  institu- 
tion,- names,  and  ceremonial. 

See  Matt,  xxvi  :  26-29;  Mark  xiv  :  22-26;  Luke  xxii  :  15-21 ;  i  Cor.  x  :  16, 
17;  xi :  17  to  end.     Dick,  Lect.  92.     Turrettin,  Loc.  xix,  Qu.  21. 

2.  Wliat  are  the  elements,  in  what  manner  to  be  prepared  and  set  apart,  and 
what  their  sacramental  significance  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  22,  23,  24.     Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  7.     Dick,  Lect.  92. 

3.  State  and  refute  the  doctrine  of  the  real   presence  by  a  Transubstantiation, 
with  the  elevation  and  worship  of  the  host. 

Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  13,  especially  ch.  4,  and  Canons  Cat.  Rom.  pt.  ii,  ch. 
4,  Qu.  17-41.  Turrettin,  Qu.  26,  27.  Calvin's  Inst.,  bk.  iv,  ch.  18.  Hill, 
as  above.  Archbishop  Tillottson  and  Bishop  StiUingfleet  against  Transub- 
stantiation.    Dick,  Lect.  90. 

4.  State  and  refute  the  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  26,  28.  Augsb.  Confession,  and  other  Lutheran  symbols. 
Hill,  as  above.     Dick,  Lect.  91. 

'  I  "*HE  only  sacrament    which    Protestants  recognize,  besides 

baptism,  is  that  called  by  them,  in  imitation  of  Paul  (i  Cor. 

xi  :   20),    "The    Lord's    Supper"    (JcF-vov 

I.  Scriptural  Names.  ^\        ,-r^,  ,         ,,  c-      ■    .         1 

y.O[icfj:/.ov).      ihe  only  other  Scriptural  names 

which  seem  clearly  established  are  the  breaking  of  bread  {yjAat^i 
TOO  drno'j,  Acts  ii  :  42-46  ;  xx  :  7),  and  possibly  xocviovia  ( i  Cor. 
X  :  16).  The  cup  is  called  no-rjptov  rv^^  ehhrftaq,  (i  Cor.  x  :  16), 
but  this  is  evidently  not  a  name  for  the  whole  ordinance.  And 
in  verse  21,  communicating  is  called  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
Table  {-^6.-^.^0).  This  hardly  amounts  to  a  calling  of  the  ordi- 
nance by  the  name  of  "  table ;"  but  it  is  "instructive,  as  showing 
no  favour  whatever  to  the  notion  of  altars  and  sacrifice,  as  con- 
nected with  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Among  the   fathers   it  was  called  often  zhyaptoria,  some- 
^    .  .   ^^  times  au'jdqtc.  or  hctounrio. ;  more  often  &oata, 

or  p.uarrj()cov\  or  among  the  Latins,  inissa. 
The  use  of  the  word  dvala  was  at  first  only  rhetorical  and  figu- 
rative; and  thus  the  error  of  considering  the  Lord's  Supper  an 
actual  sacrifice  had  its  way  prepared.  While  the  Romanists 
sometimes  endeavor  to  trace  the  word  inissa  to  other  etynoms 
(as  to  Dp  tribute;  rirnty^"^,  banquet;  or  to  /i!j;j<Trc,  initiation), 

its  derivation  is  undoubtedly  from  the  formulary  with  which  the 
spectators  and  catechumens  were  dismissed  before  the  cele- 
bration of  the  Lord's  Supper  :  inissa  est  (viz.,  congregatio). 

The   definition   which    Presbyterians   hold,    is    that   of  our 

_  ^  . .         ,  -,  Catechisms,   e.   g.,    Shorter,   Qu.  q6  :  "  The 

Definition  and  Nature,    t         n  ■  ,         1  •       1 

Lord  u  supper  is  a  sacrament  wherein,  by 
800 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  80I 

giving  and  receiving  bread  and  wine,  according  to  Christ's 
appointment,  His  death  is  showed  forth  ;  and  the  wortliy  receiv- 
ers are  not  after  a  corporal  and  carnal  manner,  but  by  faith 
made  partakers  of  His  body  and  blood,  with  all  His  benefits,  to 
their  spiritual  nourishment  and  growth  in  grace."  This  is 
obviously  no  more  than  a  correct  digest  of  the  views  stated  or 
implied  in  the  sundry  passages  where  the  ordinance  is  described. 
Its  institution  was  evidently  simple  and  free  from  mystery  ;  and 
had  not  the  strange  career  of  superstition  been  run  on  this  sub- 
ject by  the  Christian  Church,  the  dispassionate  reader  would 
have  derived  no  conceptions  from  the  sacred  narrative  but  the 
simple  ones  of  a  commemorative'  seal.  And  these  natural, 
popular  views  of  the  sacrament  are  doubtless  best  adapted  for 
edification. 

I  hold  that  our  Saviour  undoubtedly  held  His  last  passover 
on  the  regular  passover  evening,  and  that 
tion.^^  °'^  °  "^  ^'  ^^^^  ordinance,  intended  by  Him  to  super- 
sede and  replace  the  passover  (i  Cor.  v  :  7), 
was  very  quietly  introduced  at  its  close.  To  do  this.  He  took 
up  the  bread  (doubtless  the  unleavened  bread  of  the  occasion), 
and  the  cup  of  wine  (after  Jewish  fashion  mingled  with  water), 
provided  for  the  occasion,  and  introduced  them  to  their  new 
use  by  an  act  of  solemn  thanksgiving  to  God.  Then  He  brake 
the  bread  and  distributed  it,  and,  after  the  bread,  the  wine — 
partaking  of  neither  Himself — saying:  "This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  Me;  eat,  drink  ye  all  of  it,  to  show  forth  the  Lord's 
death  till  He  come."  These  mandatory  words  were  accom- 
panied also  with  certain  explicatory  words,  conveying  the 
nature  of  the  symbol  and  pledge ;  stating  that  the  bread  repre- 
sented His  body,  and  the  cup  the  covenant  made  in  His  blood 
— the  body  lacerated  and  killed,  and  the  blood  shed,  for 
redemption.  The  sacramental  acts,  therefore,  warranted  by 
Christ  are,  the  taking,  breaking,  and  distributing  the  elements,  on 
the  administrator's  part,  and  their  manual  reception,  and  eating  or 
drinking,  on  the  recipient's  part.  The  sacramental  words  are 
the  thanksgiving,  the  explicatory  and  promissory,  and  the  man- 
datory. The .  whole  is  then  appropriately  concluded  with 
another  act  of  praise  (not  sacramental,  but  an  appendage 
thereto),  either  by  praying,  or  singing,  or  both.  And  to  add 
anything  else  is  superstition. 

To   continue  this  subject:    The  elements  are  bread   and 
^,        ^  wine.     The    Greek    Church    says   the  bread 

2.  Elements.  ,         ,  i        i         t       •  i  , 

must  be  leavened,  the  JLatm  unleavened, 
making  this  a  point  of  serious  importance.  We  believe  that 
the  bread  used  was  paschal.  But  it  was  not  Christ's  intention 
to  give  ritually  a  paschal  character  to  the  new  sacrament ;  and 
bread  is  employed  as  the  material  element  of  nutrition,  the  one 
most  familiar  and  universal.  Hence,  we  regard  all  the  disputes 
as  to  leaven,  and  the  other  ininuti<2  made  essential  by  the  Romish 
SI* 


802  SYLLABUS    AND     NOTES 

lubrick  (wheaten,  mingled  with  proper  water,  not  worm-eaten, 
&c.,)  as  non-essential.  Probably  the  wine  was  also  mingled  with 
water  on  the  first  occasion ;  but,  on  the  same  grounds,  we  regard 
it  as  selected  simply  as  the  most  common  and  familiar  refresh- 
ment of  the  human  race ;  and  the  presence  of  water  is  therefore 
non-essential.  Indeed,  modern  chemistry  has  shown  that,  in  all 
wine,  water  is  the  solvent,  and  the  largest  constituent. 

According  to  all  Christians,  these  elements  are  conceived 
as  undergoing  some  kind  of  consecration. 
WhatT  ^'^^^'^'^^  °"  Rome  places  this  in  the  pronunciation  of 
the  words  of  institution,  "  This  is  My  body," 
and  teaches  that  it  results  in  a  total  change  of  the  substance  of 
the  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  But 
the  only  change  which  Protestants  admit  in  a  consecration  of 
the  elements,  is  the  simple  change  of  their  use,  from  a  com- 
mon, to  a  sacred  and  sacramental  one.  And  this  consecration 
we  believe  to  be  wrought,  not  by  pronouncing  the  words, 
"This  is  My  body,"  but  by  the  eucharistic  act  of  worship 
which  introduces  the  sacrament.  For  the  natural  language  of 
consecration  is  that  of  worship ;  not  that  of  a  didactic  and 
promissory  sentence.  Witness  the  cases  of  grace  over  our 
food,  and  all  the  consecrations  of  the  Old  Testament,  e.  g., 
Deut.  xxvi  :  5-10.  When  Christ  says,  "  This  is  My  Body," 
were  the  consecration  what  Papists  suppose,  these  words  would 
imply  that  it  is  already  made.  And  last,  the  words,  sup- 
posed by  them  to  be  words  of  consecration,  are  too  va- 
riant in  the  different  histories  of  the  sacrament  in  sacred 
Scripture. 

The  breaking  of  the  bread  is  plainly  one  of  the  sacramen- 
tal acts,  and  should  never  be  done  before- 
Bread^Significant.  ^  hand,  by  Others,  nor  ommitted  by  the  minis- 
ter. The  words  etc  dfjzo^  (i  Cor.  x  :  17)  are 
not  correctly  represented  in  the  English  version.  The  proper 
force  of  the  word,  as  may  be  seen  in  Jno.  vi  :  9,  is  loaf,  or  more 
properly,  cake ;  and  the  Apostle's  idea  is,  that  the  oneness  of 
the  mass  of  bread,  and  of  the  cup,  partaken  by  all,  signifies 
their  unity  in  one  spiritual  body.  It  would  be  better  that  the 
bread  should  be  taken  by  the  ofificiator  in  one  mass,  and  broken 
before  the  people,  after  the  prayer.  The  proper  significancy 
of  the  sacrament  requires  it ;  for  the  Christ  we  commemorate 
is  the  Christ  lacerated  and  .slain.  Further;  Christ  brake  the 
bread  in  distributing  it ;  and  commanded  us  to  imitate  Him, 
saying:  "This  do,"  &c.  Third;  the  Apostles  undoubtedly 
made  the  breaking  one  of  the  sacramental  acts ;  for  Paul  says, 
I  Cor.  X  :  16,  "The  bread  which  we  break,"  &:c.  Last,  when 
the  sacrament  itself  is  more  often  called  "the  breaking  of 
bread,"  than  by  any  other  one  name,  it  can  hardly  be  sup- 
posed that  the  breaking  is  not  a  proper  part  of  the  cere- 
monial. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  803 

There  is  also  a  significancy  in  the  taking  of  the  wine  after 
Pouring  of  the  Wine,  the  bread,  in  a  distinct  act  of  reception; 
after  the  ]5read,  Signif-  because  it  is  the  blood  as  separated  from  the 
^'^^"*'  body    by    death,    that    we      commemorate. 

Hence  the  soaking  of  the  bread  in  the  cup  is  improper,  as  well 
as  the  plea  by  which  Rome  justifies  communion  in  one  kind; 
that  as  the  blood  is  in  the  body,  the  bread  conveys  alone  a 
complete  sacrament.  As  we  should  commemorate  it,  the  blood 
is  not  in  the  body,  but  poured  out. 

The  acts  on  the  Communicant's  part,  also,  are  sacramental 
and  significant,  viz  :  the  taking  and  eating. 
ConSlunTcSnts^'''  °'  These  acts  symbolize  generally,  Faith,  as  the 
soul's  receptive  act;  just  as  the  elements 
distributed  by  God's  institution  signify  that  which  is  the  object 
of  faith,  Christ  slain  for  our  redemption.  But  the  Confession 
29,  §  I,  states,  in  greater  detail,  and  with  strict  scriptural  pro- 
priety, that  these  acts  commemorate  Christ's  death,  constitute  a 
profession  and  engagement  to  serve  Him,  show  the  reception 
of  a  covenanted  redemption  thus  sealed  to  us,  and  indicate  our 
communion  with  each  other  and  Christ,  our  Head,  in  one  spiri- 
tual body.  The  first  idea  is  plainly  set  forth  in  i  Cor.  xi  :  24, 
last  clause,  as  well  as  parallel  passages,  and  in  verses  25  and 
26.  The  second  is  implied  in  the  first,  in  the  individual  char- 
acter of  the  act,  in  i  Cor.  xi  :  25,  "covenant,"  and  in  the 
nature  of  faith,  which  embraces  Christ  as  our  Saviour  from  sin 
unto  holiness.  The  third  idea  is  plainly  implied  in  the  signifi- 
cancy of  the  elements  themselves,  which  are  the  materials  of 
nutrition  and  refreshment;  as  well  as  in  Jno.  vi  :  50-55.  For 
though  we  strenuously  dispute,  against  Rome,  that  the  lan- 
guage of  this  passage  is  descriptive  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  Supper  was  afterward's  devised  upon  the  anal- 
ogy which  furnished  the  metaphor  of  the  passage.  And  the 
didactic  and  promissory  language,  "This  is  My  body,"  "This 
is  My  blood,"  sacramentally  understood,  obviously  convey  the 
idea  of  nutrition  offered  to  the  soul.  The  last  idea  is  very 
clearly  set  forth  in  i  Cor.  x  :  16,  17.  And  this  is  the  feature 
of  the  sacrament  from  which  it  has  received  its  popular  name, 
of  Communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  parties  who  may  properly  partake  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 

Who  May  Partake?      P^^   ^^    ^^    ^^^^^^^  ^^^^e^'  }   ^^^^  f  \  ^7-^0, 

as  to  leav^e  no  room  tor  debate.  It  is  those 
who  have  examined  themselves  successfully  "of  their  knowl- 
edge to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  and  faith  to  feed  on  Him, 
repentance,  love,  and,  new  obedience."  Shorter  Catechism, 
question  97,  See,  also.  Larger  Catechism,  question  171-175. 
That  this  sacrament  is  to  be  given  only  to  credible  professors, 
does  not  indeed  follow  necessarily  from  the  fact  that  it  symbol- 
izes saving  grace ;  for  baptism  does  this ;  but  from  the  express 
limitation  of  Paul,   and  from  the  different  graces  symbolized. 


804  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Baptism  symbolizes  those  graces  which  initiate  the  Christian 
Hfe  :  The  Supper,  those  also  which  continue  it.  Hence,  while 
the  former  is  once  applied  to  infants  born  within  the  covenant, 
to  ratify  their  outward  membership,  in  the  dependence  on  the 
gracious  promise  that  they  shall  be  brought  to  commence  the 
Christian  life  afterwards ;  it  would  be  wrong  to  grant  the  sec- 
ond sacrament  to  any  who  have  not  given  some  indication  of 
an  actual  progress  in  spiritual  life. 

Thus  far,  all  has  been  intelligible,  reasonable,  and  adapted 
1  The  Supper  soon  ^°  nourish  and  comfort  the  faith  of  the  plain 
Perverted  by  two  Er-  believer.  But  the  well-informed  are  aware 
^°''^-  that  this  ordinance,  so  quietly  and  simply  in- 

troduced by  our  Saviour,  and  so  simply  explained,  has  met  the 
strange  fortune  of  becoming  the  especial  subject  of  superstitious 
amplification ;  until,  in  the  Romish  Church,  it  has  become  nearly 
the  whole  of  worship.  It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  the 
history  of  this  growth ;  but  time  only  allows  us  to  remark,  that 
two  unscriptural  ideas  became  early  associated  with  it;  in  con- 
sequence of  a  pagan  grossness  of  perception,  and  a  false  expo- 
sition of  Scripture.  One  of  these  was  that  of  a  literal  or  real 
corporeal  presence ;  the  other  that  of  a  true  sacrifice  for  sin. 
Still,  those  more  superstitious  Christians  who  held  these  two 
ideas,  did  not,  for  a  long  time,  define  the  manner  in  which  they 
were  supposed  to  be  true.  At  length  two  theories  developed 
themselves,  that  of  Paschasius  Radbert,  transubstantiation ;  and 
that  of  Berengar,  consubstantiation.  The  former  of  these  tri- 
umphed in  the  Lateran  Council  1215  ;  the  latter  was  condemned 
as  heretical,  till  Luther  revived  it,  though  stripped  of  the  sacri- 
ficial feature. 

According  to  Rome,  when  the  priest  canonically,  and  with 

.    .  proper  intention,  pronounces  the  words  in  the 

Transubstantiation.  <<   tr  ^         j.  >»  i-u      u         j         j 

mass  :  noc  est  corpus  nieum,  the  bread  and 
wine  are  changed  into  the  very  body  and  blood  of  the  living 
Christ,  including,  of  course,  His  soul  and  divinity  ;  which  me- 
diatorial person,  the  priest  does  then  truly  and  literally  break 
and  offer  again,  as  a  proper  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  living 
and  the  dead ;  and  he  and  the  people  eat  Him.  True  ;  the  ac- 
cidents, or  material  qualities  of  bread  and  wine  remain,  but  in 
and  under  them,  the  substance  of  bread  is  gone,  and  the  sub- 
stance really  existing  is  Christ's  person.  But  in  this  condition 
of  things,  it  exists  without  the  customary  material  attributes  of 
locality,  extension,  and  divisibility  ;  for  He  is  none  the  less  in 
heaven,  and  in  all  the  '  hosts,'  all  over  the  world  at  once  ;  and 
into  however  small  parts  they  may  be  divided,  each  is  a  perfect 
Christ !  Hence,  to  elevate,  and  carry  this  host  in  procession, 
and  to  worship  it  with  Aa.zr)zi(i  is  perfectly  proper.  Whether 
such  a  batch  of  absurdities  is  really  believed  by  any  reflecting 
mind,  it  is  not  for  us  to  decide. 

The  scriptural  basis  for  this  monstrous  superstructure  is 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  805 

very  narrow,  while  the  papal  is  wide  enough. 
^^ScripturalArguments    ^^^^   depends  chiefly  in   Scripture   on  the 

language  of  Jno.  vi :  50,  &c.,  and  on  the  as- 
sertion of  the  absolutely  literal  interpretation  of  the  words  of 
institution  in  the  parallel  passages  cited  by  us  at  the  beginning. 
We  easily  set  aside  the  argument  from  Jno.  vi  :  50,  &c.,  by  the 
remark,  that  it  applies  not  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  to  the  spir- 
itual actings  of  faith  on  Christ  figuratively  described.  For  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  not  yet  instituted ;  and  it  is  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  our  Saviour  would  use  language  necessarily  unintelli- 
gible to  all  His  followers,  the  subject  never  having  been  divulged 
to  them.  On  the  contrary,  in  verse  35,  we  find  that  the  coming 
and  eating  is  defined  as  the  actings  of  faith.  If  the  chapter  be 
forced  into  an  application  to  the  Supper,  then  verses  53  and  54 
explicitly  teach  that  every  one  who  eats  the  Supper  goes  to 
heaven,  and  that  no  one  who  fails  to  eat  it  does ;  neither  of 
which  Rome  admits  :  And  in  verse  6^,  our  Saviour  fixes  a  figur- 
ative and  spiritual  interpretation  of  His  words,  beyond  all 
•question. 

When   we  proceed   to   the  words  of  institution,  we  assert 

that  the  obvious  meaning  is  tropical ;  and  is 
Pr^:Sy  ExJJatet""    equivalent    to    "This   represents   my  body." 

The  evidences  of  this  are  manifold.  First, 
we  cite  the  frequency  of  similar  locutions  in  Hebrew,  and  He- 
braistic Greek.  Consult  Gen.  xli  :  26,  27 ;  Ezek.  xxxvii  :  1 1  ; 
Dan.  vii  :  24;  Exod.  xii  :  ii  ;  Matt,  xiii  :  38,  39;  Rev.  i  :  20; 
xvii  :  g,  12,  18,  ct passim.  Yea,  we  find  Christ  saying  of  Him- 
self: "  I  am  the  way,  the  truth,  the  life,"  Jno.  xiv  :  6  ;  "the  vine," 
Jno.  XV  :  I  ;  "  the  door,"  Jno.  x  :  9.  Why  is  a  tropical  exposition 
more  reasonable  or  neccessary  here  ?  Yet,  without  it  we  make 
■absolute  nonsense. 

But  even   if  we  had  no   usage  to  illustrate   our  Saviour's 

sense,  it  would  be  manifest  from  the  text  and 
Propr  ^^^''^''^  °^   context  alone,  that  His  sense  is  tropical.  The 

TouTo  must  be  demonstrative  of  bread,  and 
equivalent  to,  this  bread  (is  my  body) ;  because  bread  is  the 
nearest  antecedent,  the  whole  series  of  the  narrative  shows  it ; 
in  the  parallel  case  of  the  W4ine,cup  is,  in  one  narrative, expressed: 
and  the  allusion  of  Paul,  i  Cor.  x  :  16,  "The  bread  which  we 
break,"  shows  it.  So,  the  aCofj.a.  means  evidently  the  body  dead 
(corpse),  as  is  proved  by  the  expression  "broken  for  you,"  and 
by  the  fact  that  the  blood  is  separated  from  it :  as  well  as  by 
current  usage  of  narratives.  Now  paraphrase  the  sentence  : 
"  This  bread  is  my  dead  body,"  and  any  other  than  a  tropical 
sense  is  impossible.  For  (a.)  The  predication  is  self-contradic- 
tory ;  if  it  is  bread,  it  is  not  body ;  if  body,  it  is  not  bread,  sub- 
ject or  predicate  is  out  of  joint,  (b.)  The  body  was  not  yet 
dead,  by  many  hours,  (c.)  Incompatibles  cannot  be  predi- 
cated of  each  other.     A  given  substance  A.  cannot  be  changed 


8o6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

into  a  substance  B.  which  was  pre-existent  before  the  change ; 
because  the  change  must  bring  B.  into  existence. 

Again :  all  will  admit  that  the  proper  sense  is  that  in  which 

the  disciples  comprehended  the  words  as  first 

have'A^J'rSdX"'    ^P^ken.     It  is  impossible   that   they   should 

have  understood  the  bread  as  truly  the  body: 

because  they   saw  the  body  handling  the   bread  !     The  body 

would  have  been  wholly  in  its  own  hand ! 

Scripture  calls  it  bread  still  after  it  is  said,  by  Papists,  to  be 
transubstantiated,  i  Cor.  x  :  17.  "All  partakers  of  that  one 
bread."     See  also,  i  Cor.  xi  :  26,  27,  28. 

There  are  variations  of  language  which  are  utterly  incom- 
patible with  a  strictly  literal  sense.  In  the  gospels  it  is  said : 
"  He  took  the  cup  ,  .  .  and  said  This  is  my  blood,"  &c. 
There  must  be  here  a  metonom)^  of  the  cup  for  that  which  it 
contains — at  least.  But  in  i  Cor.  xi :  25,  the  words  are  "  This  cup 
is  the  new  covenant  of  my  blood,"  &c.,  where,  if  literalness  is 
retained,  we  get  the  impossible  and  most  unpopish  idea,  that  the 
cup  was  the  covenant. 

But  passing  from  the  exegetical,  to  the  general  argument, 
Transubstantiation  ^  literal  transubstantiation  is  impossible,  be- 
Absurd.  (a.)  Because  cause  it  violates  our  senses.  They  all  tell  us 
it  Violates  our  Senses.  ^^  is  still  bread  and  wine,  by  touch,  taste, 
smell,  sight.  The  senses  are  the  only  inlets  of  information  as 
to  external  facts ;  if  we  may  not  believe  their  deliberate  testi- 
mony, there  is  an  end  of  all  acquired  knowledge.  This  may  be 
fairly  stated  in  a  stronger  form  :  it  is  impossible  that  my  mind 
can  be  validly  taught  the  fact  of  such  a  transubstantiation  ;  for 
the  only  channel  by  which  I  can  be  taught  it  is  the  senses ;  and 
transubstantiation,  if  true,  would  teach  me  that  my  senses  do  not 
convey  truth.  It  is  just  as  likely  that  I  do  not  hear  Rome  say- 
ing, "  Transubstantiation  is  true,"  when  I  seem  to  hear  her,  as 
that  I  do  not  see  a  wafer,  but  a  Christ,  when  I  seem  to  see  it. 
Nor  is  it  any  answer  to  say  :  the  senses  deceive  us.  This  is  only 
when  hurried;  and  the  sensible  medium  imp.^rfect,  or  senses 
diseased.  Here  all  the  four  senses  of  all  men,  in  health  unani- 
mously perceive  only  bread  and  wine. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  impossible  to  be  true  ;  because  it 
(b.)  It  violates  Rea-  violates  our  understanding.  Our  mental  in- 
son.  No  Plea  to  call  tuitions  Compel  us  to  recognize  substance  by 
It  a  Miracle.  j^g  sensible  attributes.      Those  attributes  in- 

here only  in  the  substance,  and  can  only  be  present  by  its  pres- 
ence. It  is  impossible  to  avoid  this  reference.  An  attribute  or 
accident  is  relative  to  its  substance  ;  to  attempt  to  conceive  of 
it  as  separate  destroys  it.  Again  :  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  ab- 
stract from  matter,  the  attributes  of  locality,  dimension,  and 
divisibility.  But  transubstantiation  requires  us  to  conceive  of 
Christ's  body  without  all  these.  Again  :  it  is  impossible  for 
matter  to  be  ubiquitous ;  but  Christ's  body  must  be  so,  if  this 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  807 

doctrine  be  true.  And  it  is  vain  to  attempt  an  evasion  of  these 
two  arguments  from  sense  and  reason,  by  pleading  a  great  and 
mysterious  miracle.  For  God's  omnipotence  does  not  work 
the  impossible  and  the  natural  contradiction.  And  whatever 
miracle  has  ever  taken  place,  has  necessarily  been  just  as  de- 
pendent on  human  senses,  for  man's  cognizance  of  its  occur- 
rence, as  any  common  event.  So  that  if  the  fundamental  law 
of  the  senses  is  outraged,  man  is  as  incapable  of  knowing  a  mir- 
acle as  any  other  thing. 

Once  more  the  doctrine   of  transubstantiation   contradicts 
the  analogy  of  faith.     It  is  incompatible  with 

(c.)   It  violates  the    our  Saviour's  professed  attitude  and  intention. 
Analogy  01  b  aith.  ,  .   ,  ,  *^  .        .  -n 

which  was  then  to  mstitute  a  sacrament.  Jout 
Rome  herself  defines  a  sacrament  as  an  outward  sign  of  an  in- 
visible grace.  Hence  Christ's  attitude  and  intention  naturally 
lead  us  to  regard  the  elements  as  only  signs.  This  is  true  of  all 
the  sacraments  of  Old  and  New  Testaments,  unless  this  be  an 
exception:  and  especially  of  the  passover,  on  which  the  Supper 
was  engrafted. 

Transubstantiation  would  utterly  destroy  the  nature  of  a 
sacrament ;  because,  if  the  symbols  are  changed  into  the  Christ, 
there  is  no  sign. 

It  contradicts  also  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  ascension  and 
second  advent.  For  these  teach  us,  that  He  is  at  the  Father's 
right  hand  now,  and  will  only  come  thence  at  the  final  consum- 
mation. 

It  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  substituting  a 
loathsome  form  of  sacred  (literal)  cannibalism,  for  that  faith  of 
the  soul,  which  receives  the  legal  effects  of  Christ's  atoning  suf- 
ferings as  its  justification. 

Transubstantiation  being  disproved,  all  elevation  and  wor- 
ship of  the  host,  as  well  as  kneeling  at  the 
to  bemSppef  ""'  sacrament,  are  disproved.  The  Episcopal 
reasons  for  the  latter  are,  that  while  no  change 
of  the  bread  and  wine  is  admitted,  and  no  worship  of  them 
designed,  yet  the  reverence,  contrition  and  homage  of  the 
believer  for  his  crucified  Saviour  prompt  him  to  kneel  to  Christ. 
We  reply,  that  the  worship  of  Christ  is  of  course  proper  at  all 
proper  times.  But  the  attitude  of  worship  is  not  proper  at  the 
moment  when  Christ  expressly  commands  us  to  do  something 
else  than  kneel.  Had  the  paralytic,  for  instance,  of  Matt,  ix  : 
5,  6.  when  he  received  the  order,  "Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and 
go,"  insisted  on  kneeling  just  then,  it  would  have  been  dis- 
obedience, and  not  reverence.  So,  when  Christ  calls  us  to  a 
communion  in  eating  together  His  sacramental  supper,  the 
proper  posture  is  that  of  a  guest,  for  the  time.  If  any  Christian 
desires  to  show  his  homage  by  coming  to  the  table  from  his 
knees,  and  returning  from  it  to  them,  very  well.  But  let  him 
not  kneel,  in  the  very  act  in  which  Christ  commands  him  to  feast. 


808  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Consubstantiation  teaches  that  there  is  no  Hteral  change  of 
4,  Consubstantiation  the  elements,  but   that  they  remain   simple 
Equally  Erroneous,  but   bread  and  wine.     Yet,  in   a   mysterious  and 
not  so  Impious.  miraculous  manner,  there  is  a  real  presence, 

in,  under,  and  along  with  them,  of  the  whole  person  of  Christ, 
which  is  literally,  though  invisibly,  eaten  along  with  them. 
Unworthy  communicants  also  receive  it,  to  their  own  dam- 
nation. While  this  doctrine  is  not  attended  with  the  impious 
results  of  transubstantiation,  it  is  liable  to  nearly  all  the  exe- 
getical,  sensible,  rational,  and  doctrinal  objections.  Indeed,  in 
one  sense,  the  exegetical  objections  are  stronger ;  because  it 
literalness  must  needs  be  retained  in  the  words  of  institution, 
it  is  a  less  violation  of  language  to  make  them  mean  the  bread 
is  the  body,  than  that  the  bread  accompanies  the  body.  The 
Lutheran  exegesis,  while  boasting  of  its  faithful  preservation  ot 
our  Saviour's  language,  really  neither  makes  it  literal,  nor  inter- 
prets it  by  any  allowable  trope.  It  does  not  outrage  the  under- 
standing so  much,  by  requiring  us  to  believe  that  substance  can 
be  separate  from  all  its  accidents  ;  for  it  professes  to  leave  the 
substance  of  the  bread  untouched.  Nor  is  it  so  obnoxious  to 
the  last  head  of  objections  raised  .against  transubstantiation,  in 
that  it  does  not  destroy  the  sacramental  sign.  But  the  rest  of 
my  arguments  apply  against  it,  and  need  not  be  recapitulated. 


LECTURE  LXVIJI. 

THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.— Concluded. 


SYLLABUS. 

5.  In  what  sense  did  Calvin  hold  a  Real  Presence  ?     What  the  doctrine  of  Zuing- 
lius  concerning  it ;  and  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Divines  ? 

Calvin  Inst.  bk.  iv,  ch.  17,  ^  i-ii>  and  Commentaries.  Zwinglii  Ratio  Fidei 
\  8.  Dorner's  Hist.  Prot.  Theo.,  Vol.  1^2,  ch.  3.  Dr.  Wm.  Cunningham, 
Discussion  of  Ch.  Prin.  Conf  of  Faith,  ch.  29,  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  7.  Dick, 
Lect.  91.  Turrettin,  Loc.  xix,  Qu.  28.  Hodge,  Theol.  Vol.  3,  ch.  20,  \  16. 
So.  Presb.  Rev.,  Jan.  1876,  Art.  6. 

6.  Is  tlie  Lord's  Supper  a  sacrifice  ? 

See  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  13,  ch.  2.  Cat.  Rom.  pt.  ii,  ch.  4,  Qu.  53.  Tur- 
rettin, Qu.  29.     Dick,  Lect.  91. 

7.  Are  private  communions  admissable  ? 
Cat.  Rom.  as  above.     Dick,  Lect.  92. 

8.  Defend  the  propriety  of  communion  in  both  kinds. 

Cat.  Rom.  as  above,  Qu.  50,  &c.  Calvin  Inst.  bk.  iv,  ch.  17.   Turrettin,  Qu.  25. 

9.  Who  should  administer  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
Ridgley,  Qu.  168  to  170,  \  2. 

10.  What  is  the  nature  of  the  efficiency  of  the  sacrament  to  worthy  communi- 
-  cants,  and  of  the  sin  of  its  abuse  by  the  unworthy  ? 

Calvin  Inst.  bk.  iv,  ch.  14,  especially  \  17.  Hill  and  Dick  as  above.  Knapp, 
\  145.     See  also  on  whole,  Knapp,  |  144,  146. 

T^  HERE    is    a    sense,  in  which  all    evangelical    Christians 

would  admit  a   real  presence   in  the  Lord's  Supper.     The 

second  Person  of  the  Trinity  being  very  God, 

R  ^*l?r°*^ence^    ^^^       immense  and  ubiquitous,  is  of  course  present 

wherever  the  bread  and  wine  are  distributed. 

Likewise,  His  operations  are  present,  through  the  power  of  the 

Holy  Ghost  employing  the  elements  as  means  of  grace,  with  all 

true  believers   communicating.     (Matt,   xviii  :  20).     But  this  is 

the  only  sort  of  presence  admitted  by  us. 

Zwinglius,  seemingly  the  most  emancipated  of  all  the 
Reformers  from  superstition  and  prejudice, 
Suppirf^''^"  ^^^^  °f  taught  that  the  sacrament  is  only  a  com- 
memorative seal,  and  that  the  human  part  of 
Christ's  person  is  not  present  in  the  sacrament,  except  to  the 
faith  of  the  intelligent  believer.  This  he  sustains  irrefragably 
by  the  many  passages  in  which  we  are  taught  that  Christ's 
humanity  is  ascended  into  the  heavens,  thence  to  return  no 
more  till  the  end  of  all  things.  That  this  humanity,  however 
glorified,  has  its  iibi,  just  as  strictly  as  any  human  body;  that  if 
there  is  any  literal  humanity  fed  upon  for  redemption  by  the 
believing  communicant,  it  must  be  his  passible  and  suffering 
humanity,  while  Christ's  proper  humanity  is  now  glorified ; 
(which  would  necessitate  giving  Christ  a  double  humanity) ;  and 
that  the  sacramental  language  is  tropical,  as  is  evinced  by  a 
sound  exegesis  and  the  testimony  of  the  better  Fathers.  The 
■defect  of  the   Zwinglian   view  is,  that  while  it  hints,  it  does  not 

809 


8 10  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

distinctly  enough  assert,  the  seaHng  nature  of  the  sacraments. 
Both  Romanist  and  Lutheran  minds,  accustomed  to  regard 
Calvin's  View.  Prop-  •  ^^^  Eucharist  from  points  of  view  intensely 
erly  Grounded  on  Vital  mystical,  received  the  Zvvinglian  with  loud 
Union  to  Christ;  yet  clamour,  as  being  odiously  bald  and  rational- 
Overstrains  it.  •    ,•  /^i-iir  i_-  T- 

istic.  Calvin,  thereiore,  bemg  perhaps  some- 
what influenced  by  personal  attachments  to  ]\Ielancthon,  and  by 
a  desire  to  heal  the  lamentable  dissensions  of  Reformed  and 
Lutherans,  propounded  (in  his  Inst,  and  elsewhere)  an  inter- 
mediate view.  This  is,  that  the  humanity,  as  well  as  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  in  a  word,  his  whole  person,  is  spiritually,  yet  really 
present,  not  to  the  bodily  mouth,  but  to  the  souls  of  true  com- 
municants, so  that  though  the  humanity  be  in  heaven  only,  it  is- 
still  fed  on  in  some  ineffable,  yet  real  and  literal  way,  by  the 
souls  of  believers.  The  ingenious  and  acute  defence  of  this 
strange  opinion,  contained  in  the  Inst.  Bk.  iv  :  Ch.  17,  proceeds 
upon  this  postulate,  which  I  regard  as  correct,  and  as  eminently 
illustrative  of  the  true  nature  of  the  sacramental  efficiency ; 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  represents  and  applies  the  vital,  mystical 
union  of  the  Lord  with  believers.  Such  therefore  as  the  vital 
union  is,  such  must  be  our  view  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper, 
Is  the  vital  union  then,  only  a  secret  relationship  between  Christ 
and  the  soul,  instituted  when  faith  is  first  exercised,  and  consti- 
tuted by  the  indwelling  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  or, 
is  it  a  mysterious,  yet  substantial  conjunction,  of  the  spiritual 
substance,  soul,  to  the  whole  substance  of  the  mediatorial  Per- 
son, including  especially  the  humanity  ?  In  a  word,  does  the 
spiritual  vitality  propagate  itself  in  a  mode  strictly  analogous  to 
that,  in  which  vegetable  vitality  is  propagated  from  the  stock 
into  the  graft,  by  actual  conjunction  of  substance?  Now  Cal- 
vin answers,  emphatically :  the  union  is  of  the  latter  kind.  His 
view  seems  to  be,  that  not  only  the  mediatorial  Person,  but 
especially  the  corporeal  part  thereof,  has  been  established  by 
the  incarnation,  as  a  sort  of  duct  through  which  the  inherent 
spiritual  life  of  God,  the  fountain  is  transmitted  to  believers, 
through  the  mystical  union.  His  arguments  are,  that  the  body 
of  Christ  is  asserted  to  be  our  life,  in  places  so  numerous  and 
emphatic  (Jno.  i  :  i,  14  ;  vi  :  27,  33,  51-59  ;  Eph.  v  :  30  ;  i  Cor, 
vi  :  15  ;  Eph.  iv  :  16)  that  exegetical  fidelity  requires  of  us- to 
understand  by  it  more  than  a  participation  in  spiritual  indwell- 
ing and  influences  purchased  for  believers  by  His  death  ;  that 
the  incomprehensibility  of  a  spiritual,  though  true  and  literal, 
substantial  conjunction  of  our  souls  with  Christ's  flesh  in  heaven, 
should  not  lead  us  to  reject  the  word  of  our  God  ;  and  that 
faith  cannot  be  the  whole  amount  of  the  vital  union  of  believers 
to  Christ,  inasmuch  as  it  is  said  to  be  by  faith.  The  union  must 
be  more  than  the  means  which  constitutes  it. 

Now,  it  is  this  view  of  Calvin,  which  we  find  Hill  asserting,. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  8ll 

and  Dick  and  Cunningham  denying,  as  the 
mL\SDoXtl7""''  estabhshed    doctrine    of   the    AngHcan    and 

Scotch  Churches,  and  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly.  A  careful  examination  of  Ch.  xxix  :  §  7,  the  decisive 
passage  of  our  Confession,  will  show,  I  think,  that  it  was  the 
intention  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  while  not  repudiating 
Calvin's  views  or  phraseology  in  a  marked  and  individual  man- 
ner, yet  to  modify  all  that  was  untenable  and  unscriptural  in  it. 
It  is  declared  that  worthy  communicants  "  do  really  and  indeed, 
yet  not  carnally  and  corporeally,  but  spiritually,  receive  and 
feed  upon  Christ  crucified  and  all  the  benefits  of  his  death  : 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  being  then  not  corporeally  or 
carnally  in,  with,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine  ;  yet  as  really, 
but  spiritually,  present  to  the  faith  of  believers,"  as  the  elements 
themselves  to  their  senses.  Note  first :  that  they  say  believers 
receive  and  feed  spiritually  upon  Christ  crucified  and  the  bene- 
fits of  His  death  ;  not  with  Calvin,  on  His  literal  flesh  and 
blood.  Next,  the  presence  which  grounds  this  receiving,  is  only 
a  presence  to  our  faith,  of  Christ's  body  and  blood  !  Hence  we 
construe  the  Confession  we  think  fairly,  to  mean  by  the  receiv- 
ing and  feeding,  precisely  the  spiritual  actings  of  faith  in  Christ 
as  our  Redeemer,  and  on  His  body  slain,  and  blood  poured  out, 
as  the  steps  of  His  atoning  work  ;  so  that  the  thing  which  the 
soul  actually  embraces,  is  not  the  corporeal  substance  of  His 
slain  body  and  shed  blood,  but  their  Redeeming  virtue.  The 
discriminating  remarks  of  Turrettin,  Qu.  28,  (Introduc.)  are 
doubtless  correct :  and  are  doubtless  the  expression  of  the  very 
view  the  Assembly  intended  to  embody.  The  human  person  of 
Christ  cannot  be  said  to  be  present  in  the  sense  of  substantive 
proximity  or  contact ;  but  only  in  this  sense  ;  that  we  say  a 
thing  is  present,  when  it  is  under  the  cognizance  of  the  faculty 
naturally  adapted  for  its  apprehension.  Thus  the  sun  is  called 
present  in  day,  absent  at  night.  He  is  no  farther  distant  in 
fact ;  but  his  beams  do  not  operate  on  our  visual  organ.  The 
blind  man  is  said  to  be  without  light ;  although  the  rays  may 
touch  his  sightless  balls.  So  a  mental  or  spiritual  presence,  is 
that  which  places  the  object  before  the  cognizance  of  the  appro- 
priate mental  faculty.  In  this  sense  only,  the  sacrament  brings 
Christ  before  us ;  that  it  places  Him,  in  faith,  before  the  cogni- 
zance of  the  sanctified  understanding  and  heart. 

We  reject  the  view  of  Calvin  concerning  the  real  presence, 

,  .  ,    ^        . .       [recognizing    our    obligation    to    meet    and 
Calvin  s  Proposition  i-r^i        c-i  t.  ^ 

Impossible.  account  lor  the   Scriptures   he   quotes,   m  a 

believing,  and  not  in  a  rationalistic  spirit]  ; 

first,  because  it  is  not  only  incomprehensible,  but  impossible. 

Does  it  not  require  us  to  admit,  in  admitting  the  literal  (though 

spiritual)  reception  of  Christ's  corporeal  part,  it  in  a  distant 

heaven,  and  we   on  earth ;  that  matter  may  exist  without  its 

essential  attributes  of  locality  and  dimension  ?     Have  not  our 


8 12  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

souls  their  2ibi?  They  are  limited,  substantively,  to  some  spot 
within  the  superficies  of  our  bodies,  just  as  really  as  though 
they  were  material.  Has  not  Christ's  flesh  its  iibi,  though  glo- 
rified, and  as  much  more  brilliant  than  ours,  as  a  diamond  is 
than  carbon  ?  To  my  mind,  therefore,  there  is  as  real  a  viola- 
tion of  my  intuitive  reason,  in  this  doctrine ;  as  when  transub- 
stantiation  requires  me  to  believe  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  is 
present,  indivisible  and  unextended,  in  each  crumb  or  drop  of 
the  elements.  Both  are  contrary  to  the  laws  of  extension. 
And  that  Christ's  glorified  body  dwells  on  high,  no  more  to 
return  actually  to  earth  till  the  final  consummation  is  asserted 
too  plainly  and  frequently  to  be  disputed.  (Matt,  xxvi  :  1 1  ; 
Jno.  xvi  :  28 ;  xvii  :  1 1  ;  xvi  :  7 ;  Luke  xxiv  :  5 1 ;  Acts  iii  :  21  ; 
i  :  II. 

Second.  The  bread  broken  and  wine  poured  out  symbol- 
ize the  body  broken  and  slain,  and  blood 
\,\ll^lio^^l':T'  shed,  by  death.  Now,  according  to  Calvin, 
it  is  a  mystical  union  which  is  sealed  and 
applied  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  as  to  propagate  spiritual  life ; 
and  throughout  John  vi,  where  His  life-giving  flesh  is  so  much 
spoken  of,  it  is  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  the  believers'  union 
to  Christ,  which  is  described.  Well,  how  unreasonable  it  is  to 
suppose  spiritual  life  communicated  through  the  actual,  corpo- 
real substance  of  Christ's  body,  at  the  very  stage  at  which  the 
body  is  itself  lifeless  ? 

Third.  While  the  Old  Testament  believers  had  not  the 
Old  Testament  identical  sacraments  which  we  have,  they 
Saints  could  not  Share  had  the  Same  kind  of  spiritual  life,  nourished 
'*•  in   the   same   way.     (See   Rom.  iv  :  5  ;    Heb. 

xi,  and  especially  l  Cor.  x  :  1-4).  Here  the  very  same  figure 
is  employed — that  of  eating  and  drinking.  How  could  this  be 
an  eating  of  His  flesh,  when  that  flesh  was  not  yet  in  existence  ? 

This  remark  brings  that  theory  of  the  mystical  union, 
on  which  the  Romish,  the  Lutheran,  and  the  patristic  doctrines 
of  the  "  real  presence  rest,"  to  a  decisive  test.  Were  Old  Tes- 
tament saints  saved  in  the  same  gospel  way  with  us?  Yes. 
Then  that  theory  which  makes  the  theanthropic  Person  the 
corporeal  duct  of  spiritual  life,  is  not  true  :  for  when  they  were 
saved,  there  was  no  theanthropic  Person. 

Fourth.  The  sixth  chapter  of  John  contains  many  inter- 
nal marks,  by  which  the  feeding  on  Christ  is 
•Simply  BeEg°"  ''  identified  with  faith,  and  His  fl^esh  is  shown 
to  be  only  a  figure  for  the  benefits  of  His 
redempftion.  The  occasion — the  miracle  of  feeding  the  thous- 
ands with  five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  and  the  consequent  pursuit 
of  Christ  by  the  multitude,  made  it  very  natural  that  Christ 
should  adopt  the  figure  of  an  eating  of  food,  to  represent 
receiving  Him.  Verse  29  shows  that  eating  is  simply  believing; 
for  had  Calvin's  sense  been  true,  our  Saviour  would  not  have 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  815 

said  so  emphatically,  that  believing  was  the  work  of  God.  In 
verse  35,  again,  it  is  implied  that  the  eating  is  but  coming,  i.  e., 
believing.  So,  verses  40,  47  with  50.  In  verse  53,  we  have 
language  which  is  as  destructive  of  a  spiritual  feeding  on  the 
literal  bodj^  in  the  sacraments,  as  of  a  corporeal ;  for  in  either 
case  it  would  be  made  to  teach  the  unscriptural  doctrine,  that  a 
soul  cannot  be  saved  without  the  sacraments.  In  verses  67,, 
our  Saviour  plainly  interprets  His  own  meaning.  Christ's 
omniscience  having  shown  Him  that  the  hearers  were  miscon- 
cieving  His  words,  as  of  a  literal  and  corporeal  eating ;  He  here 
proceeds  to  correct  that  mistake.  His  scope  may  be  thus  par- 
aphrased :  "Are  your  minds  so  gross  as  to  suppose  that  salva- 
tion is  to  be  attained  by  a  literal  eating  of  the  Saviour's 
material  flesh  ?  No  wonder  you  are  scandalized  by  so  gross  an 
idea !  Is  it  not  a  sufficient  proof  of  its  erroneousness,  that  in  a 
few  months  you  are  to  see  the  Redeemer's  person  (divine  and 
corporeal)  ascend  to  the  heavens  from  which  the  eternal  Word 
descended  ?  Of  course,  that  utter  seclusion  of  His  material 
body  from  the  militant  Church  sufficiently  explodes  every  idea 
of  a  material  presence  and  literal  eating.  But  besides :  all 
such  notions  misconceive  the  true  nature  of  redemption.  This 
is  a  spiritual  work ;  no  material  flesh  can  have  any  profitable 
agency  to  promote  it,  as  it  is  a  propagation  of  life  in  the  soul ; 
the  agency  must  be  spiritual ;  not  physical.  And  the  vehicle 
of  that  agency  is  the  gospel  word,  not  any  material  flesh,  how- 
ever connected  with  the  redeeming  Person.  The  thing  you 
lack,  is  not  any  such  literal  eating  (a  thing  as  useless  as  impos- 
sible) but  true,  living  faith  on  Christ."  (Verses  60-64).  The 
best  proof  of  the  justice  of  this  exposition  is  its  perfect  coher- 
ency with  the  context.  Calvin  {Com.  in  loco)  labours  hard,  but 
unsuccessfully,  to  make  the  passage  bear  another  sense,  which 
would  not  be  fatal  to  the  peculiar  feature  of  his  theory.  And 
the  whole  tenour  of  Scripture  (e.  g.  Matt,  xv  :  17,  18),  is 
unfavourable  to  the  conception  of  the  moral  condition  of  the 
soul's  being  made  dependent  on  a  reception  of  corporeal  sub- 
stance. 

Last.  (See  i  Cor.  xi  :  27,  29).     The  destructive  effects  of 
Calvin   Inconsistent    unworthy  communicating  are  here  described 
with  Results  of  Unwor-    in   terms  which   plainly  make   this  mischief 
thy  Eating.  ^^  counterpart  of  the  benefit  which  the  true 

believer  derives,  by  proper  communicating.  Now,  if  this  latter 
is  an  access  of  spiritual  life  through  a  substantial  (though  spiri- 
tual) reception  of  Christ's  Person,  the  former  must  be  a  propa- 
gation of  spiritual  death,  through  the  poisonous  effects  of  this 
same  Person,  substantively  present  to  the  soul.  But,  says  Cal- 
vin, with  obvious  correctness,  the  unbelieving  communicant 
does  not  get  the  Person  of  Christ  into  contact  with  his  soul  at 
all !  The  thing  he  guiltily  does,  is  the  keeping  of  Christ  away^ 
from  his  soul  totally,  by  his  unbelief. 


8 14  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Here  we   may  appropriately  answer  the  tenth    question. 
We  hold  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  means 

True  Nature  of  Sac-        r  j    i.i  •    i.        i  i.-  r 

ramental  Efficiency.        °^  g^^^e ;    and   the  scriptural   conception    of 

this  phrase  explains  the  manner  in  which  the 
sacrament  is  efficacious  to  worthy  communicants.  It  sets  forth 
the  central  truths  of  redemption,  in  a  manner  admirably 
adapted  to  our  nature  sanctified ;  and  these  truths,  applied  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  are  the  instruments  of  sanctification  and  spiri- 
tual life,  in  a  manner  generically  the  same  with,  though  in 
degree  more  energetic,  than  the  written  and  spoken  word.  So, 
the  guilt  of  the  unbelieving  communicant  is  not  one  inevitably 
damning;  but  it  is  the  guilt  of  Christ's  rejection  ;  it  is  the  guilt 
of  doing  despite  to  the  crucified  Saviour  by  whom  he  should 
have  been  redeemed ;  and  this  under  circumstances  of  pecu- 
liar profanity.  But  the  profanation  varies  according  to  the 
decree  of  conscious  hypocrisy,  and  the  motive  of  the  act. 

In  conclusion  of  this  head,  I  would  remark  that  all  these 
objections  to  that  modified  form  of  the  real  presence  which 
Calvin  held,  apply  a  fortiori,  to  the  grosser  doctrines  of  the 
Lutheran  and  Romanist.  The  intelligent  student  can  go  over 
the  application  himself 

Rome  asserts  most  emphatically  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
6.  Is  the  Supper  a  a  proper  and  literal  sacrifice ;  in  which  the 
Sacrifice?  Rome's  elements,  having  become  the  very  body. 
Arguments.  ,^1^^^^  human  spirit,  and  divinity  of  Christ, 

are  again  offered  to  God  upon  the  altar;  and  the  transaction  is 
thus  a  repetition  of  the  very  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  and  avails  to 
atone  for  the  sins  of  the  living,  and  of  the  dead  in  purgatory. 
And  all  this  is  dependent  on  the  priest's  intention.  After  the 
authority  of  Church  Fathers  and  councils,  which  we  set  aside 
with  a  simple  denial,  Rome  argues  from  Scripture,  that  Christ 
was  a  priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek  ;  but  He  presented  as 
priest,  bread  and  wine  as  an  oblation  to  God,  and  then  made 
Abraham  communicate  in  it:  That  Christ  is  a  "priest  forever," 
and  therefore  must  have  a  perpetually  recurring  sacrifice  to  pre- 
sent :  That  Malachi  (i :  ii),  predicts  the  continuance  of  a  Chris- 
tian sacrifice  among  the  Gentiles,  under  the  New  Testament. 
That  the  words  of  institution :  "  This  is  My  body  which  is 
broken  for  you,"  when  taken  literally,  as  they  ought  to  be, 
imply  a  sacrifice,  because  the  bread,  having  become  the  veri- 
table body,  must  be  whatever  the  body  is  ;  but  the  body  is 
there  a  sacrifice.  And  that  Paul  (i  Cor.  x  :  2i),  contrasts  the 
Lord's  table  with  that  of  devils  (i.  e.,  idols).  But  the  latter  was 
confessedly  a  table  of  sacrifice,  whence  the  former  must  be  so. 
But  the  true  argument  with  Rome  for  teaching  this  doctrine,  is 
that  of  Acts  xix  :  25  ;  they  "  know  that  by  this  craft  they  have 
their  wealth."  The  great  necessity  of  the  human  soul,  awakened 
by  remorse,  or  by  the  convincing  Spirit  of  God,  is  atonement.  By 
making  this  horrible  and  impious  invention,  Rome  has  brought 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  815 

the  guilty  consciences  of  miserable  sinners  under  her  dominion, 
in  order  to  make  merchandise  of  their  sin  and  fear.  While 
nothing  can  transcend  the  unscripturalness  of  the  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation,  I  regard  this  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass  as 
the  most  impious  and  mischievous  of  all  the  heresies  of  Rome. 

In  answer  to  her  pretended  scriptural  arguments  :  There 
.  is  not   one  word  of  evidence  that  the  bread 

and  wine  of  Melchizedek,  if  even  an  obla- 
tion, were  a  sacrifice.  Does  Rome  mean  to  represent  the  sac- 
rament of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  in  exercise  1400  years  before 
Christ  had  any  body  to  commemorate  ?  Christ's  priesthood  is 
perpetual ;  but  it  is  perpetuated,  according  to  Hebrews,  in  His 
function  of  intercession,  which  He  continually  performs  in  the 
heavenly  Sanctuary.  And  besides :  it  is  a  queer  way  to  per- 
petuate His  priestly  functions,  by  having  a  line  of  other  priests 
offer  Him  as  the  victim  of  their  sacrifices  !  Rome  replies,  that 
her  priest,  in  offering,  acts  in  Christ's  room,  and  speaks  in  His 
name.  Such  impiety  is  not  strange  on  the  part  of  Rome.  We 
set  aside  the  whole  dream  by  demanding,  where  is  the  evidence 
that  Christ  has  ever  called  one  of  His  ministers  a  priest,  or  dep- 
utized to  him  this  function  ?  The  prediction  of  Malachi  is  obvi- 
ously to  be  explained  by  the  remark,  that  he  foretells  the  prev- 
alence of  Christian  institutions  among  the  Gentiles,  in  terms 
and  imagery  borrowed  from  Jewish  rites.  The  same  bungling 
interpretation  which  Rome  makes  here,  would  equally  prove 
from  Is.  ii  :  1,4,  that  the  great  annual  feasts  at  Jerusalem  are 
to  be  personally  attended  by  all  the  people  of  Europe,  Aus- 
tralia, America,  &c. ;  and  from  Is.  Ivi  :  7,  that  not  only  the  "  un- 
bloody offering  of  the  Mass,"  but  literal  burnt  offerings  shall  be 
presented  under  the  New  Testament  by  the  Gentiles.  By  dis- 
proving the  transubstantiation  of  the  bread,  we  have  already 
overthrown  the  argument  founded  on  it.  And  last :  it  is  evi- 
dently an  overstraining  of  the  Apostle's  words,  to  infer  from 
I  Cor.  X  :  21,  that  the  thing  literally  eaten  at  the  Lord's  table 
must  be  a  literal  sacrifice.  Since  the  elements  eaten  are  the 
symbols  of  the  divine  sacrifice,  there  is  in  this  an  abundant 
ground  for  the  Apostle's  paraHel.  And  moreover,  when  the 
Pagans  met  after  the  sacrifice,  to  eat  of  the  body  of  the  victim, 
the  table  was  not  an  altar,  nor  was  the  act  a  sacrificial  one. 

The  direct  refutation  of  this  dogma  has  been  so  well  exe- 

^^    ^     ^  ^.       „       cuted  by  Calvin,   Turrettin.   and   other  Prot- 
Heads  of  Direct  Re-         i.      i.      i.i     -_         i.i  •  •         , , 

f^,tation.  estants,  that  nothnig   more   remams,  than   to 

collect  and  state  in  their  proper  order  the 
more  important  arguments.  The  silence  of  the  Scripture  is  a 
iust  objection  to  it ;  because  the  burden  of  proof  properly  lies 
on  those  who  assert  the  doctrine.  The  circumstances  of  the 
first  administration  of  the  Supper  exclude  all  sacrificial  charac- 
ter. No  one  will  deny  that  this  sacrament  must  bear  the  same 
meaning    and    character    in    all    subsequent    repetitions,    which 


8l6  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Christ  gave  it  at  first.  But  on  that  night,  it  could  not  be  a  sac- 
rifice, because  His  sacrifice  was  not  yet  made.  Christ  was  as 
yet  unslain.  Nothing  was  offered  to  God  ;  but  on  the  contrary, 
Christ  gave  the  elements  to  man :  whereas,  in  a  proper  sacri- 
fice, it  is  man  that  offers  to  God.  Not  one  of  the  proper  traits 
or  characteristics  of  a  true  sacrifice  is  present.  There  is  no  vic- 
tim, shedding  His  blood ;  and  "  without  the  shedding  of  blood 
is  no  remission,"  There  is  no  sacrificial  act  whatever;  and  this 
is  especially  fatal  to  Romanists ;  because  the  only  oblation  to 
God,  which  can  by  any  pretext  be  found  in  the  history  of  the 
institution  in  Scripture,  is  that  of  the  eucharistic  prayer.  But, 
say  they,  the  transubstantiation  does  not  take  place  till  after 
this,  in  the  pronouncing  of  the  words  of  institution.  There 
is  no  death  and  consumption  of  a  victim  by  fire  ;  for  the  only 
thing  like  a  killing  is  the  breaking  of  the  bread  :  but  according 
to  Romanists,  this  occurred  in  our  Saviour's  institution,  before 
the  transubstantiation.  Again :  The  mere  fact  that  the  Supper 
is  a  sacrament  is  incompatible  with  its  being  a  sacrifice  ;  for  the 
nature  of  the  two  is  dissimilar.  True,  the  passover  was  both, 
but  this  was  at  different  stages.  But  we  object  with  yet  more 
emphasis,  that  the  doctrine  is  impiously  derogatory  to  Christ's 
one  priesthood  and  sacrifice,  and  to  the  sufficiency  thereof,  as 
asserted  in  Scripture.  Christ  is  sole  priest,  (i  Tim.  ii  :  5; 
Heb.  vii  :  24;  ix  :  12),  and  He  offers  one  sacrifice,  which  neither 
needs  nor  admits  repetition.  (Heb.  vii  :  27 ;  ix  :  25  ;  x  :  i,  2, 
10,  12,  14  and  26  with  ix  :  12-14). 

Protestants    deny    the    propriety   of   private    communions. 

because  they  deny  that  the  Supper  is  a  sac- 
ionkejected.    WhyT'    rifice.       It    is   a    commemoration    of  Christ's 

death,  and  shows  forth  His  death.  There 
should  therefore  be  fellow  communicants  to  whom  to  show  it 
forth,  or  at  least  spectators.  It  is  a  communion,  representing, 
our  membership  in  the  common  body  of  Christ.  Hence  to  cel- 
ebrate it  when  no  members  are  present  to  participate  is  an 
abuse.  The  motive  for  desiring  private  communion  is  usually 
superstitious,  and  therefore  our  Church  does  wisely  in  refusing  it. 
The  grounds  on  which  Rome  withholds  the  cup  from  the 

^    ^   .     ^   .  laity  may  be    seen   stated  in  the  Council   of 

8.    Laity  Entitled  to     t.        ,  i        -i.    j     •        T^•    i  t^u  2. 

the  Cup.  irent,   and    cited    m    Uick.       Ihey   are    too 

trivial  to  need  refutation.  It  is  enough  to 
say  that  the  assertion  that  the  bread  by  itself  is  a  whole  sac- 
rament, because  the  blood  is  in  the  body,  is  false.  For  it  is  the 
very  nature  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  signify,  that  the  blood  is 
not  in  the  body,  having  been  poured  out  from  it  in  death.  We 
might  justly  ask :  Why  is  not  the  bread  alone  sufficient  for  the 
priests  also,  if  it  is  a  whole  sacrament  ?  The  outrage  upon 
Christ's  institute  is  peculiarly  glaring,  because  the  injunction  to 
give  the  cup  to  the  communicants  is  as  clear  and  positive  as  to 
observe  the  sacrament  at  all.      And    our  Saviour,  as  though 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  817 

foreseeing  the  abuse,  in  Mark  xiv  :  23,  and  Matt  xxvi  :  27,  has 
emphatically  declared  that  all  who  eat  are  also  to  drink.  This 
innovation  of  Rome  is  comparatively  modern  ;  being  not  more 
against  the  Word  of  God,  than  against  the  voice  and  usage  of 
Christian  antiquity.  It  presents  one  of  the  strongest  examples 
of  her  insolent  arrogance  both  towards  her  people  and  God. 
The  true  motive,  doubtless,  is,  to  exalt  the  priesthood  into  a 
superior  caste. 

9.  For  the  answer  to  this,  see  Lectures  on  the  Sacraments 
in  General.     Qu.  lo. 


LECTURE  LXIX. 

DEATH  OF  BELIEVERS. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Why  does  Death  befall  Justified  persons  ? 

Dick,  Lect.  80.     Ridgley,  Qu.  84.     Knapp,  Theol.  §  147. 

2.  Review  the  Arguments  for  the  Immortality  of  the  soul. 

Butler's  Analogy,  pt.  i.     Turrettin,  Loc.  v,  Qu.  14.     Dick  as  above.     Ridgley, 
Qu.  86.     Breckinridge's  Theol.,  Vol.  i.  bk.  i,  ch.  6. 

3.  What  benefits  do  believers  receive  at  Death  ?     Is  entire  sanctification  one  of 
them? 

Dick,  Lect.  81.     Ridgley,  Qu.  86.     Knapp,  as  above. 

4.  Are  any  Souls  detained  in  any  other  place  (as  a  Hades,  &c.)  than  Heaven  and 
Hell  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xii,  Qu.  11.     Hodge,  pt.  iv,  ch.  i  §  i,  3.     Knapp,  as  above. 

5.  Is  the  Soul  Conscious  and  Active,  between  Death  and  the  Resurrection? 
Hodge,   as  above  ^  2.     Dick,  Lect.  81.     Ridgley,  Qu.  86.     Dr.  Jno.  Miller, 
Questions  raised  by  the  Bible,  pt.  i.     "  Last  Things,"  by  Dr.  Gardiner  Spring 

jT^EATH  is  undoutedly  a  penal  evil ;  and  not  merely  a 
natural  law,  as  Socinians  and  Pelagians  teach.  This  we 
I.  Death  is  a  Penal  have  already  shown  by  the  Bible,  (Gen. 
Evil.  Why  Then  In-  ii  :  17;  iii ;  17-19;  v  :  3;  Rom.  V  :  12,  14) 
flictedon  the  Justified?  ^^^j  ^y  the  obvious  reasoning,  that  the  benev- 
olence and  righteousness,  with  the  infinite  power  of  God,  would 
combine  to  prevent  any  suffering  to  His  moral  creatures  while 
free  from  guilt.  Man  enters  life  now,  subject  to  the  whole  pen- 
alty of  death,  including  temporal  physical  evils,  spiritual  death, 
and  bodily  death ;  and  this  is  the  consequence  of  Adam's  fall 
through  our  federal  connection  with  him.  From  spiritual  death, 
all  believers  are  delivered  at  their  regeneration.  Physical  evils 
and  bodily  death  remain ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  latter  was  a 
most  distinctive  and  emphatic  retribution  for  sin,  the  question 
is,  how  it  comes  to  be  inflicted  on  those  who  are  absolutely 
justified  in  Christ.  On  the  one  hand,  bodily  death  was  a  penal 
infliction.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  taught  that  believers 
are  justified  from  all  guilt,  and  are  required  to  render  no  penal 

52* 


SI  5  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

satisfaction  whatever.  (Rom.  v  :  i  ;  Heb.  x  :  14,  &c.)  Yet  all 
believers  die  ? 

Now  this  question  is  very  inadequately  met  by  such  views 
as  these  :  That  this  anomaly  is  no  greater 
swert'  ^""^  '^'"'  '^""  than  many  others  in  the  divine  dealings  ;  e. 
g.,  the  continuance  of  imperfection  and 
indwelling  sin  so  many  years  in  believers,  or  their  subjection  to 
the  malice  of  evil  men  and  demons.  That  the  destruction  of 
the  body  is  necessary  to  a  perfect  sanctification ;  a  thing  shown 
to  be  untrue  in  the  cases  of  Enoch,  Elijah,  the  human  soul  of 
Christ,  and  all  the  believers  who  shall  be  on  earth  at  the  last 
consummation ;  or,  that  the  natural  law  of  mortality,  and  the 
rule  of  God's  kingdom,  that  men  must  "  walk  by  faith,  not  by 
sight,"  would  both  be  violated,  if  so  visible  a  difference  were 
placed  between  saints  and  sinners,  as  the  entire  exemption  of 
the  former  from  bodily  death.  These  are  partial  explanations. 
The  true  answer  is,  that  although  believers  are  fully  justified, 
yet  according  to  that  plan  of  grace  which  God  has  seen  fit  to 
adopt,  bodily  death  is  a  necessary  and  wholesome  chastisement 
for  the  good  of  the  believer's  soul-  If  this  postulate  can  be 
shown  to  be  correct,  the  occurrence  of  death  to  the  justified 
man  will  fall  into  the  same  class  with  all  other  paternal  chas- 
tisements, and  will  receive  the  same  explanation. 

Let  us  then  recall  some  principles  which  were  established 
in  our  defence  of  our  view  of  the  Atone- 
c£sTisemems'!^'''"'''°^  "^^"t  against  Romanists,  &c.  First.  A  chas- 
tisement, while  God's  motive  in  it  is  only 
benevolent,  does  not  cease  to  be,  to  the  believer,  a  natural  evil. 
We  may  call  it  a  blessing  in  disguise ;  but  the  Christian  smart- 
ing under  it  feels,  that  if  this  language  means  that  it  is  not  a 
real  evil,  it  is  a  mere  play  upon  words.  The  accurate  statement 
is,  that  God  wisely  and  kindly  exercises  in  chastisements  His 
divine  prerogative  of  bringing  good  out  of  evil.  Bodily  death 
does  not  cease  to  be  to  the  believer  a  real  natural  evil  in  itself, 
and  to  be  feared  and  felt  as  such.  Second.  Hence,  chastise- 
ment is  a  means  of  spiritual  benefit  appropriate  only  to  sinning 
children  of  God.  It  would  not  be  just,  for  instance,  that  God 
should  adopt  chastisements  as  a  means  to  advance  Gabriel,  who 
never  had  any  guilt,  to  some  higher  stage  of  sanctified  capaci- 
ties and  blessedness ;  because  where  there  is  no  guilt  there  is  no 
suffering.  Third.  Still,  God's  motive  in  chastising  the  believer 
is  not  at  all  retributive,  but  wholly  beneficent ;  whereas  His 
retributions  of  the  guilty  are  intended,  not  primarily  to  benefit 
them,  but  to  satisfy  righteousness.  Here  then  is  the  distinctive 
difference  between  Rome  and  us ;  that  we  hold,  while  the 
sufferings  endured  in  chastisements  have  a  reference  to  our  sin- 
ful and  guilty  condition,  in  the  believer's  case  they  are  neither 
paid  by  him,  nor  received  by  God,  as  any  penal  satisfaction 
whatever  for  guilt :  that  satisfaction  is  wholly  paid  by  our  surety. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  819 

Heb.  xii  :  6-10  ;  Rom.  viii  :  18-28  ;  2  Cor.  iv  :  17  :  with  Rom. 
viii  :  33  ;  Ps.  ciii :  12  ;  Micah  vii  :  19.  Whereas,  Rome  teaches 
that  penitential  sufferings  of  behevers  go  to  complete  the  actual 
penal  satisfaction  for  the  reatum  pcBiice,  left  incomplete  by 
Christ. 

Fourth.  The  use  of  such  means  of  sanctificationis  compatible 

with  divine  justice,  although  an  infinite  vica- 
How  Compatible  with  ^.j^^g  satisfaction  is  made  for  our  guilt  by  out 
Satisfaction  for  Sin.  •        •  .  • 

surety ;  because,  as  we  saw,  a  vicarious  satis- 
faction is  not  a  commercial  equivalent  for  our  guilt;  a  legal  ten-' 
der  such  as  brings  our  Divine  Creditor  under  a  righteous  obli- 
gation to  cancel  our  whole  indebtedness.  But  His  acceptance 
of  it  as  a  legal  satisfaction  was,  on  His  part,  an  act  of  pure 
grace  ;  and  therefore  the  acceptance  acquits  us  just  so  far  as, 
and  no  farther  than,  God  is  pleased  to  allow  it.  And  we  learn 
from  His  word,  that  He  has  been  pleased  to  accept  it  just  thus 
far ;  that  the  believer  shall  be  required  to  pay  no  more  penal 
satisfaction  to  the  broken  law  ;  yet  shall  be  liable  to  such  suffer- 
ing of  chastisements  as  shall  be  wholesome  for  his  own  improve- 
ment, and  appropriate  to  his  sinning  condition. 

Now  then,  does  bodily   death   subserve  the  purposes  of  a 

wholesome  and  sanctifying  chastisement  ? 
fyingSiseme'nt.^'^''    I  answer,  most  eminently.     The  prospect  of 

it  serves,  from  the  earliest  day  when  it  begins 
to  stir  the  sinner's  conscience  to  a  wholesome  seriousness, 
through  all  his  convictions,  conversion,  Christian  warfare,  to 
humble  the  proud  soul,  to  mortify  carnality,  to  check  pride,  to 
foster  spiritual  mindedness.  It  is  the  fact  that  sicknesses  are 
premonitions  of  death,  which  make  them  active  means  of  sancti- 
fication.  Bereavements  through  the  death  of  friends  form 
another  valuable  class  of  disciplinary  sufferings.  Now  that 
death  may  be  actually  in  prospect,  death  must  actually  occur. 
And  when  the  closing  scene  approaches,  no  doubt  in  every  case 
where  the  believer  is  conscious,  the  pains  of  its  approach,  the 
solemn  thoughts  and  emotions  it  suggests,  are  all  used  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  powerful  means  of  sanctification  to  ripen  the 
soul  rapidly  for  Heaven.  I  doubt  not,  that  when  we  take  into 
view  the  whole  moral  influences  of  the  life-long  prospect  of  our 
own  deaths,  the  prospect  and  occurrence  of  bereavement  by 
death  of  friends,  the  pungent  efficiency  given  to  sickness  by  its 
<:onnection  with  death,  as  well  as  the  actual  influences  of  the 
closing  scene,  we  shall  see  that  all  other  chastisements  put 
together,  are  far  less  efficacious  in  checking  inordinate  affection 
and  sanctifying  the  soul :  yea,  that  without  this,  there  would  be 
no  efficacious  chastisement  at  all  left  in  the  world.  A  race  of 
sinners  must  be  a  race  of  mortals  ;  Death  is  the  only  check  (of 
the  nature  of  means)  potent  enough  to  prevent  depravity  from 
breaking  out  with  a  power  which  would  make  the  state  of  the 
world  perfectly  intolerable  !     Another  reason  for  inflicting  death 


820  SYLLABUS    AXD    NOTES 

on  justified  believers  may  be  found  in  i  Peter  iv  :  12,  13.  It  is 
the  supreme  test  of  the  power  of  faith.  Death  is  the  greatest 
of  temporal  and  natural  evils,  abhorrent  to  the  strongest  instincts 
of  man's  nature,  and  involving  the  maximum  of  natural  losses 
and  privations.  If  faith  and  grace  can  overcome  this  enemy, 
and  extract  his  sting,  then  indeed  have  we  a  manifestation  of 
their  virtue,  which  is  transcendent.  As  Christ,  our  Captain  of 
salvation,  gave  that  supreme  evidence  of  His  love  and  devotion, 
so  it  is  most  appropriate  that  His  people  should  present  the 
•like  evidence  of  the  power  of  His  Spirit  and  principles  in  them. 
It  is  thus  we  become  "  partakers  of  His  sufferings,"  and  assist 
in  signalizing  His  victory  over  death. 

Yet,  as  the  afflictions   of  the  righteous  differ  much  from 

2.  Death  a  Means  of  the  torments  of  the  wicked,  this  is  peculiarly 
Glory  to  Saint,  Unmix-  true  of  their  deaths.  To  the  impenitent  man, 
ed  Curse  to  Sinner.         jg^^i-^  jg  f^^^  of  ^^e  sting  of  sin.     In  the  case 

of  the  saint,  this  sting  is  extracted  by  redemption.  There  may 
not  be  the  abounding  triumphs  of  spiritual  joy  ;  but  if  the 
believer  is  conscious,  he  usually  enjoys  a  peace,  which  controls 
and  calms  the  agitations  of  the  natural  feelings  recoiling  from> 
death.  In  the  case  of  the  sinner,  the  horror  of  dying  is  made 
up  of  two  sets  of  feelings,  the  instinctive  love  of  life,  with  the 
natural  affections  which  tie  him  to  the  earth ;  and  evil  con- 
science with  dread  of  future  retributions.  And  the  latter  is 
often  predominant  in  the  sinner's  anguish.  But  in  the  case  of 
the  saint  it  is  removed  ;  and  death  is  only  an  evil  in  the  appre- 
hension of  the  former  feelings.  Second  :  to  the  sinner,  death 
is  the  beginning  of  his  utter  misery;  to  the  saint  it  is  the  usher, 
(a  dreaded  one  indeed)  into  his  real  blessedness.  By  it  the 
death  in  sins  and  bondage  of  depravity  are  fixed  upon  the  sinner 
irrevocably  :  but  the  saint  is  delivered  by  it  from  all  his  indwell- 
ing sins.  Death  removes  the  sinner  forever  from  God,  from 
partial  gospel  privileges  and  communions.  But  to  the  saint,  it 
is  the  means  of  breaking  down  the  veil,  and  introducing  him 
into  the  full  fruition  and  vision  of  God. 

See  Shorter  Cat.  Qu.   37.     Three   benefits  are  here  men- 

3.  Benefits  Received  tioned  as  received  from  Christ  at  the  believ- 
by  Saint  at  Death— i.  er's  death  :  perfect  sanctification,  imniediate 
Complete  Sanctification.  entrance  into  glory,  and  the  prospect  of  a 
bodily  resurrectiorr. 

We  take  up  here,  the  first,  postponing  the  others  for  sepa- 
rate discussion  ;  and  assuming  for  the  time,  the  implied  truth  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul.  The  complete  sanctification  of 
believers  at  death  would  hardly  be  denied  by  any,  who  admitted 
that  their  souls  entered  at  once  into  the  place  of  our  Saviour's 
glorified  residence,  and  of  God's  visible  throne.  It  is  those  who 
teach  a  separate  state,  a  transmigration,  or  Hades,  or  pur- 
gatory, or  sleep  in  the  grave,  who  deny  the  immediate  sanctifi- 
cation of  souls.     For,    the   attributes    of  God  and  heaven  are 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  821 

such  as  obviously  to  require  perfect  purity  of  all  who  dwell 
there.  Let  the  student  bear  this  in  mind,  and  have  in  view  the 
truth  to  be  hereafter  established,  that  the  souls  of  believers 
'•  do  immediately  pass  into  glory."  The  place  is  holy,  and 
debars  the  approach  of  all  moral  impurity.  (Rev.  xxi  :  27). 
The  inhabitants,  the  holy  angels  are  pure,  and  could  not  appro- 
priately admit  the  companionship  of  one  tainted  with  indwelling 
sin.  True  ;  they  now  fly  forth  to  "  minister  to  them  who  shall 
be  the  heirs  of  salvation  ;"  but  this  is  not  a  companionship.  The 
King  of  that  world  is  too  pure  to  receive  sinners  to  His  bosom. 
He  does  indeed  condescend,  by  His  Holy  Ghost,  into  the  pol- 
luted breasts  of  sinners  on  earth ;  but  this  is  a  far  different 
thing  from  a  public,  full  and  final  admission  of  sin  into  the  place 
of  His  holiness.  See  i  Peter  i  :  15,  16  ;  Ps.  v  :  4  :  xv  :  2  ;  Is. 
vi  :  5.  The  blessedness  of  the  redeemed  is  incompatible  with 
ajiy  remaining  imperfection  (Rev.  xxi  :  4).  For  wherever  there 
is  sin,  there  must  be  suffering.  And  last,  this  glorious  truth  is 
plainly  asserted  in  the  word  of  God.  Heb.  xii  :  23  ;  Eph.  v : 
27  ;    I  John  iii  :  2. 

How  this  sanctification  is  wrought,  we  may  not  tell.  Recall 
the  remark  made  when  sanctification  was  dis- 
Body's  De^a'th!'^^'  ^^  ^"ssed ;  that  it  is  not  mysticism,  nor  gnosti- 
^  cism,  nor  asceticism,  to  ascribe  its  completion 

to  our  release  from  the  body,  as  a  convenient  occasion.  Bodily 
appetites  are  the  occasions  of  the  larger  part  of  most  men's 
sins :  as  the  bodily  members  are  the  instruments  of  all  their 
overt  sins.  How  natural,  then,  that  when  these  are  removed, 
God  should  finally  remove  sin  ?  The  agent  of  this  work  is  still, 
no  doubt,  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  have  already  remarked  that  all  these  views  presuppose 
that  immo.*-tality  which  is  brought  to  light 

■n°„'.s.e'a"chtalrTau',;;  '"  <1>'=  g°=Pf';  I'  ^'^'  f'^^Y^^  seemed  to  me 
that  the  Bible  treats  the  question  of  man's 
immortality,  as  it  does  that  of  God's  existence  ;  assumes  it  as 
an  undisputed  postulate.  Hence  the  debate  urged  by  War- 
burton  and  his  opposers,  whether  Moses  taught  a  future  exist- 
ence, seems  to  me  preposterous.  To  dispute  that  he  did,  flies 
into  the  very  teeth  of  Scripture.  (Matt,  xxii  :  32  ;  Heb.  ii  : 
16,  26  ;  and  in  Pentateuch,  Gen.  v :  22,  24  ;  Gen.  xv  :  15  ;  xxv : 
S  ;  XXXV  :  29  ;  xxxvii  :  35  ;  Jude  :  14,  15  ;  Numb,  xx  :  24  ; 
xxvii  :  13.  All  religion  and  even  aU  morality  imply  a  future 
existence.  But  our  Saviour,  whose  purpose  it  was  to  reaffirm 
the  truths  of  Old  Testament  Revelation,  and  of  natural  Religion, 
which  had  been  obscured  by  the  perverse  skepticism  of  men, 
does  teach  man's  immortality  with  peculiar  distinctness  and 
fullness.  The  reader  may  consult  for  instance.  Matt,  x  :  28  ; 
Luke  xvi  :  26  ;  Matt,  xx  :  33  ;  xxv  :  to  the  end  ;  Jno.  v  :  24  ; 
viii  :  51  :  xi  :  25  ;  xii  :  25  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  i-io  ;  i  Cor.  xv  :  &c. 
This  may  perhaps  be  a  part  of  the  Apostle's  meaning,  when  he 


822  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

says,  (2  Tim.  i  :  10)  that  Christ  "  hath  brought  hfe  and  immor- 
tality to  Hght  in  the  gospel."  But  it  would  certainly  be  a  great 
abuse  of  his  meaning,  to  understand  from  him  that  Christ  v/as 
the  first  adequately  to  teach  that  there  is  an  immortal  existence, 
Paul  speaks  rather,  as  the  context  clearly  shows,  ("  hath  abol- 
ished death,")  of  spiritual  life  and  a  happy  immortality  which 
Christianity  procures.  And  it  is  the  glory  of  the  religion  of  the 
Bible  to  have  clearly  made  this  known  to  man. 

It  may  be  well  to  note  that  the  immortality  of  the  Bible  is 
that  of  the  whole  man,  body  and  soul  ;  and 
andBody!'  *""'  °^  ^"""^  herein  God's  word  transcends  entirely  all  the 
guesses  of  natural  reason.  And  this  future 
existence  implies  the  continuance  of  our  consciousness,  memory, 
mental,  and  personal  identity ;  of  the  same  soul  in  the  same 
body,  (after  the  resurrection).  There  must  be  also  the  essential 
and  characteristic  exercises  of  our  reasonable  and  moral  nature, 
with  an  unbroken  continuity.  For  if  the  being  who  is  to  live, 
and  be  affected  with  weal  or  woe  by  my  conduct  here,  is  not  the 
/,  who  now  act,  and  hope,  and  fear,  that  future  existence  is  of 
small  moment  to  me. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  here,  to  review  the  amount  of  light 
which  natural  reason  has  been  able  to  collect 

Rational  Arguments    concerning  man's  future  existence.    Since  the 
iveviewed.  .  ^ 

resurrection  of  the  body  is  purely  a  doc- 
trine of  revelation,  of  which  reason  could  not  have  any  surmise 
(witness  the  Pagan  philosophies),  the  question  must  be  discussed 
rationally  as  a  question  concerning  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
only.  All  that  natural  experience  ever  sees  of.  the  body  is  its 
death,  dissolution,  and  seemingly  irreparable  destruction.  But 
since  the  soul  is  the  true  seat  of  sensation,  knowledge,  emotion, 
merit,  and  will,  the  assertion  of  its  immortality  is  far  the  most 
important  doctrine  of  man's  future  existe'nce.  The  various 
opinions  of  men  on  this  subject,  who  had  no  revelation,  maybe 
seen  stated  in  Knapp'sTheol.  §  149,  viz  :  materialism  (Epicurus,) 
transmigrations,  ( Brahmins  Pythagoras,  and  some  Jews,  )  re- 
absorption  into  the  iiav  (Stoic  Pantheists),  and  separate  dis- 
embodied immortality  (Plato,  &c).  Among  the  many  reason- 
ings advanced  by  ancients  and  moderns,  these  following  seem  to 
me  to  have  probable  weight. 

(a)  The  consensus  populoruni,  especially  v/hen  we  consider 
how  naturally  man's  sensuous  nature  and  evil  conscience  might 
incline  him  to  neglect  the  truth. 

(b)  The  analogy  of  the  fact,  that  man  and  all  other  living 
things  obviously  experience  several  stages  ;  first  the  foetus,  then 
infant,  then  adult.     It  is  natural  to  expect  other  stages.  (Butler). 

(c)  A  present  existence  raises  a  presumption  of  continued 
existence,  (as  the  sun's  rising,  that  it  will  rise  again)  unless  there 
is  something  in  the  body's  dissolution  to  destroy  the  probability. 
But  is  there  ?     No.     For  body  sleeps  while  soul  wakes.     Body 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  823 

may  waste,  fatten,  be  amputated,  undergo  flux  of  particles,  loss 
of  sensible  organs,  while  soul  remains  identical.  In  sensation, 
the  soul  only  uses  the  organs  of  sense,  as  one  might  feel  with  a 
stick,  or  see  through  a  glass.  The  more  essential  operations  of 
spirit,  conception,  memory,  comparison,  reasoning,  &:c.,  are  only 
related  to  bodily  functions,  if  at  all ;  as  causes  to  effects : 
whence  we  conclude  that  the  essential  subsistence  of  the  soul 
is  independent  of  the  body.     (Butler). 

(d)  The  soul  is  simple,  a  monad,  as  is  proved  by  conscious- 
ness. But  there  is  not  a  particle  of  analogy,  in  the  universe,  to 
show  that  it  is  probable  God  will  annihilate  any  substance  He 
has  created.  The  only  .instances  of  destruction  we  see,  are 
those  of  disorganization  of  the  complex.     (Butler :  Brown). 

(e)  The  soul  has  higher  powers  than  any  of  God's  terres- 
trial works  ;  strange  that  the  brute,  earth,  and  even  elephants, 
eagles,  and  geese  should  be  more  long-lived  !  It  has  a  capacity 
for  mental  and  moral  development  beyond  any  which  it  attains 
in  this  life.  God  has  ordained  that  all  things  else  should  fulfill 
the  ends  of  their  existence.  It  can  know  and  glorify  God  : 
strange  that  God,  making  all  things  for  His  own  glory,  should 
make  His  rational  servants  such  that  the  honour  derived  from 
them  must  utterly  terminate.. 

(f )  Conscience  points  directly  to  a  superior  moral  Ruler, 
and  a  future  existence,  with  its  retributions. 

(g)  The  unequal  distribution  of  retributions  here  on  earth, 
coupled  with  our  confidence  in  the  righteousness  of  God, 
compels  a  belief  in  a  future  existence,  where  all  shall  be 
equalized. 

We  have  asserted  it,  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  that 
the  souls  of  believers  do  pass  immediately 
me'diateStarer^''*""  into  glory.  In  opposition  to  this,  there  are 
some,  among  the  professed  believers  in  the 
Bible,  who  hold  some  kind  of  intermediate  state,  in  which  the 
souls  of  all,  saints  and  sinners,  are  detained.  The  opinions  of 
this  kind  may  be  ranked  under  three  heads:  i.  That  of  the 
Romish  Purgatory,  which  has  been  already  discussed.  2.  That 
of  the  Jewish  Hades,  held  by  some  Rabbins  and  Prelatists, 
early  and  modern  ;  and  3d.  That  of  the  ancient  Socinians  and 
modern  Thomasites,  who  hold  that  the  soul  will  sleep  uncon- 
scious until  the  body's  resurrection.  The  second  of  these 
opinions  will  be  the  subject  of  the  present  section  ;  and  the 
the  third,  of  the  fifth  and  last. 

The  Jewish  doctrine  seems  to  have  been,  that  the  souls  of 
.  departed  men  do  not  pass  at  once  into  their 

jewisi  ociine.  ultimate  abode  ;  but  into  the  invisible  world, 
"Acdrj<;  7i^^^'  where  they  await  their  final  doom,  until  the  final  con- 
summation, in  a  state  of  partial  and  negative  blessedness  or 
misery,  respectively.  This  Hades  has  two  departments,  that  of 
the  blessed,  Paradise,  or  the  Bosom  of  Abraham,  and  that  of 


824  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  lost,  Tartarus.  But  this  Paradise  is  far  short  of  the  heavens 
proper  in  blessedness,  as  well  as  different  in  locality,  and  this 
Tartarus  far  less  intolerable  than  Gehenna,  or  hell  proper.  The 
following  passages  were  supposed  by  them  to  favor  this  opinion : 
Gen.  xxxvii  :  35  ;  xlii  :  38;  "Go  down  to  Hades;"  1  Samuel 
xxviii  :  li,  14  and  19  :  "An  old  man  cometh  up,"  "  Be  with  me 
to-morrow  :"  Zech.  ix  :  1 1  ;  where  it  is  supposed  the  souls  are 
in  a  place  hke  a  dry  pit ;  Ps.  vi  ;  5  ;  Ixxxviii  :  10  ;  cxv  :  17; 
cxliii  :  3  ;  where  the  state  of  the  dead  is  described  seem- 
ingly as  a  senseless  and  negative  one.  And  some  Papists  have 
supposed  that  their  kindred  notion  of  a  Livibus  patriim  found 
support  in  Luke  xvi  :  23  ;  in  that  Dives  and  Lazarus  seem  to  be 
near  enough  to  each  other,  to  converse.  This,  they  suppose, 
proves  that  both  are  in  the  same  "  under-world."  They  quote 
also  Eccles.  ix  :  5,6,  and  similar  passages,  which  seem  to  teach 
the  state  of  the  dead  to  be  one  of  inactivity  and  negation. 

The  reply  to  this  Jewish  and  patristic  notion  must  proceed 

on   the  postulate,  that  they  both   misunder- 
Intermediate  State    g^^j^^  ^j^g  Scriptures  ;  the  Fathers   and  Pre- 
JDiscusscd.  ^ 

latists  following  the   errors    of  the    Rabbins. 

One  general  remark  to  be  made  is,  that  when  the  Old  Testa- 
ment seems  to  speak  of  the  spirit-world,  as  a  place  of  darkness 
and  inaction,  it  evidently  speaks  "  ad  sensiuny  It  is  thus 
that  the  dead  appear  to  us :  As  to  terrestrial  interests,  their 
activities  and  knowledge  are  ended.  These  passages  are  not  to 
be  strained  to  deny  that  souls  enter  upon  new,  spiritual  activi- 
ties, beyond  the  sphere  of  human  experience. 

1.  The  general  drift  of  Scriptures  certainly  teaches,  that 
at  death  man's  probation  ends.  "  As  the  tree  falleth,  so  it  shall 
lie."  See  also,  Rev.  xxii  :  ii.  Now,  why  should  the  future 
career  and  destiny  of  souls  be  thus  held  in  abeyance  and  sus- 
pense, so  many  ages  after  probation  ends  ?  The  intrinsic  activ- 
ity of  the  soul,  as  well  as  the  propriety  of  the  result,  makes  it 
probable  that  the  reward,  either  for  good  or  evil,  will  begin  as 
soon  as  it  is  completely  secured. 

2.  The  death  of  believers  is,  in  both  Testaments,  repre- 
sented as  an  entrance  upon  their  rest.  See,  for  instance,  Is. 
Ivii  :  I,  2.  So  the  death  of  sinners  is  the  beginning  of  their 
judgment.     Heb.  ix  :  27. 

3.  To  this  agree  the  expectations  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  2 
Cor.  V  :  4,  8 ;  Phil,  i  :  21-24.  To  be  "absent  from  the  body  is 
to  be  present  with  the  Lord."  He  anticipates  no  interval. 
Again  :  while  to  live  is  Christ  to  him  ;  "to  die  is  gain."  Were 
the  Rabbinical  doctrine  true,  death,  as  compared  with  a  Chris- 
tian and  fruitful  life,  would  be  comparative  loss.  Especially 
would  it  have  been  impossible  for  the  apostle  to  be  "  in  a 
strait,"  betwixt  the  desires  of  living  and  dying,  if  he  had  sup- 
posed that  the  choice  was  between  the  active  life  of  an  apostle, 
yielding  constant  good  to    men  and   glory  to  God,  as  well  as 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  825 

rich  enjoyment,  amidst  his  tribulations,  of  spiritual  happiness ; 
and  the  empty,  silent,  useless,  expectant  existence  of  a  melan- 
choly ghost  in  the  Hades  of  the  fanciful  Jews. 

4.  This  is  expressly  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the  dead 
saints  which  is  given  us  in  Scripture.  On  the  mount  of  trans- 
figuration, Moses  and  Elijah  are  seen  already  in  glory.  Of 
Moses,  at  least  it  may  be  said,  that  he  died  a  real  corporeal 
death.  Again :  in  Luke  xvi  :  22  to  end.  Lazarus  is  "  in 
Abraham's  bosom,"  he  "  is  comforted  ;  "  while  Dives  is  in  the 
fire  of  "  torment,"  in  the  actual  receipt  of  his  penal  retribution. 
When  we  compare  Matt,  viii  :  11,  we  see  that  Abraham  is  in 
"the  kingdom  of  heaven  "  which  here,  evidently  means  heaven. 
Again  :  Christ  promises  the  converted  robber :  "  This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  Me  in  Paradise."  That  Paradise  is  the  heaven  of 
bliss,  and  not  some  limbus  in  a  Jewish  Hades,  is  clear  from  2 
Cor.  xii  :  2-4,  and  Rev.  ii  :  .7.  It  is  the  same  as  the  "  third 
heaven."  It  is  the  place  where  Christ  abides  in  glory,  and  the 
tree  of  life  is  found.  So  in  Rev.  xiv  :  13.  Those  who  die  in 
the  Lord  are  blessed  from  the  date  of  their  death  (for  such  is 
the  only  tenable  rendering  of  the  "  from  henceforth,"  d-~  (iorc). 
So  Heb.  xii  :  23,  the  spirits  of  the  just  were  already  made  per- 
fect, and  denizens,  with  the  angels,  of  "the  city  of  the  living 
■God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,"  when  that  Epistle  was  written. 

The  consistent  exposition  of  the  much  criticized  passage, 
I  Peter,  iii :  19,  20,  may  be  seen,  Lect.  38. 

The  other  unscriptural  theory  which  we  promised  to 
notice  is,  that  the  soul  sleeps,  or  remains 
of  Ae  Soul]^^  °  ^^"^  without  consciousness  ;  or  at  least,  without 
external  activities,  from  death  to  the  resur- 
rection. This  is  held  in  several  forms.  The  early  followers  of 
Socinus,  while  not  denying  to  the  human  spirit  all  conscious- 
ness during  its  disembodied  state,  taught  that,  without  its  sense- 
organs,  it  could  have  no  intercourse  with  any  being  out  of  itself. 
Thus,  they  supposed  it  spent  the  interval  in  a  state  of  fruitless 
insulation.  Again,  there  have  been  many,  who  while  asserting 
fully  the  substantive  existence  of  spirit  as  distinct  from  matter, 
supposed  that  it  could  not  exist  or  act  separate  from  matter. 
They  taught  that  finite  spirit  cannot  be  related  to  space,  or  be 
possessed  of  any  consciousness,  save  through  its  incorporation. 
Hence  they  must  either  hold  that  spirit,  immediately  upon  the 
death  of  the  body,  is  united  to  an  etherial,  but  still,  an  organ- 
ized investment ;  as  Swedenborg,  (who  also  taught  that  the  soul 
never  receives,  by  any  farther  resurrection,  any  other  incorpora- 
tion) or  they  hold  that  all  spiritual  functions  must  remain  in 
abeyance,  until  the  bodily  organism  is  reconstructed.  To  this 
view,  even  Isaac  Taylor  and  Archbishop  Whately  seem  to  have 
leaned.  Others,  again,  are  materialists :  They  regard  spirit 
not  as  a  substance,  but  only  as  a  function.  If  this  be  all,  then 
of  course,  when  the  material  structure   shall  be  dissolved,  spirit 


826  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

will  cease,  as  truly  as  sound  when  the  harp-string  is  burned. 
The  modern  speculations  of  the  Evolutionists,  who  are  also 
materialists,  seek  to  remove  the  just  odium  attaching  to  their 
doctrine,  by  elevating  the  matter  with  which  they  have  identi- 
fied our  spirits  into  something  immaterial.  Having  denied  the 
substantiality  of  spirit,  they  proceed  also  to  deny  the  substanti- 
ality of  matter  :  and  reduce  both  to  forms  of  energy  proceeding 
(if  they  be  theists)  as  they  say,  from  God;  or,  (if  they  be 
atheists)  merely  different  modifications  of  one  eternal,  self- 
existent  Force.  The  doctrine  of  this  school  is  :  that  the  earli- 
est "  dust  of  the  earth  is  a  divine  efficiency ;  and  then  life 
another  ;  and  then  thought  another  ;  and  then  conscience  more  ; 
all  bred  of  God,  and  yet  dependent  back  the  one  upon  the 
other."  This  obviously,  if  it  is  not  atheism,  is  pantheism ;  for 
the  only  personality  recognized,  if  any  be 
^P  '^^'  recognized,  is  God's  ?     Those  who  attempt  to 

reconcile  these  speculations  with  Scripture,  although  they  flout 
the  immortality  of  the  soul,  yet  promise  us  a  personal,  or  incor- 
porate immortality,  through  a  bodily  resurrection  guaranteed 
by  God,  and  omnipotently  wrought  at  Christ's  final  advent. 
Such  an  expectation  is  obviously  an  excrescence  on  their  sys- 
tem, so  heterogeneous  to  it,  that  we  may  very  confidently 
anticipate  its  final  rejection  by  those  who  now  hold  it.  The 
logical  and  natural  sequel  to  be  drawn  from  their  scheme  is 
annihilation.  Once  teach  men  there  is  no  substantive  spirit,  by 
whose  mental  identity  the  continuity  of  our  being  is  preserved, 
while  the  body  is  scattered  in  dust ;  and  the  promise  of  a  res- 
surrection  becomes  to  them  meaningless  and  absurd.  The 
whole  basis  for  future  rewards  and  penalties  is  gone.  There  is 
no  more  real  identity  between  the  mind  that  sinned  here,  and 
the  new  mind  that  arises  there,  than  there  is  between  the  v/eed 
of  this  year  bred  of  the  vegetable  mould  which  resulted  from 
the  rotting  of  the  weed  of  last  year.  It  is  not  one  weeil  but 
two. 

I  shall  not  consume  time  by  repeating  the  evidences  of 
man's  substantive  spirituality ;  inasmuch  as  they  have  been 
twice  briefly  stated  in  this  course,  and  more  fully  and  impreg- 
nably  established  in  my  Discussion  of  the  Sensualistic  Philoso- 
phy of  the  Nineteenth  Century.  There  are  those,  however, 
who  admitting  that  spirit  is  a  distinct  substance,  hold  that,  from 
the  necessity  of  its  nature,  it  must  be  either  infinite,  or  incor- 
porate in  some  organism,  either  carnal  or  ethereal.  Says  Isaac 
Taylor  :  it  is  impossible  to  assign  spirit  its  ubi,  without  connect- 
ing it  with  a  body ;  because  locality  is  itself  a  mode  of  exten- 
sion ;  and  thus,  in  ascribing  a  7ibi  to  pure  spirit,  we  are  ascrib- 
ing extension  to  it.  We  might  justly  ask  :  if  the  last  assertion 
were  true,  how  would  the  matter  be  helped  by  assigning  this 
spirit  its  nbi  in  a  body  occupj'ing  a  finite  portion  of  space  ?• 
The  extended  body  is  more  certainly  burdened  with  the  attrib- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  82/ 

utes  of  extension,  than  the  finite  portion  of  space  it  occupies; 
so  that,  were  there  any  real  difficulty  in  the  point,  it  would  be 
more  difficult  for  us  to  believe  the  unextended  spirit  localized 
in  the  extended  body,  than  in  the  vacant,  finite  portion  of  space 
occupied  thereby.  But  Taylor's  whole  difficulty  has  arisen 
from  the  oversight  of  a  distinction  which  Turrettin  has  long 
ago  given.  Finite  spirit  of  course  does  not  occupy  space  cir- 
cumscriptively  ;  as  the  measure  of  corn  fills  the  bushel-measure, 
and  assumes  its  cylindrical  shape.  But  spirit  may  be  in  space 
definitively.  The  mathematical  point  has  neither  length, 
breadth,  nor  thickness :  yet  surely  none  will  deny  to  it  position 
in  space ;  since  the  point  is  the  first  rudiment  of  the  whole 
science  of  dimensions! 

No  man  has  ever  had  experience  of  cognitions  and  con- 
sciousness apart  from  his  sense-organs.  Of  course,  then,  no  man 
can  picture  to  himself  how  these  mental  functions  are  to  pro- 
ceed in  the  disembodied  state.  But  this  is  wholly  another  thing 
from  proving  either  consciousness,  or  even  objective  percep- 
tions, impossible  for  a  mind  not  incorporate.  Is  intelligence  the 
faculty  of  the  sense-organs ;  or  of  the  mind  which  uses  them  ? 
Surely  of  the  latter!  Then  the  a  priori  probabi!ity  is  wholly 
in  favour  of  the  mind's  exercising  its  own  faculty  (in  some  new 
way)  when  deprived  of  these  instruments.  If  my  sense  of 
touch  is  able,  through  the  intervention  of  a  stick,  to  cognize  a 
solid  resisting  object  a  yard  distant,  does  anybody  suppose  that 
I  will  have  any  more  difficulty  in  ascertaining  its  resistance  to 
my  tactual  sense,  without  the  stick,  by  my  hand  alone  ?  So,  it  is 
obviously  possible,  that  my  intelligence  may  only  get  the  nearer 
to  its  object,  by  the  removal  of  its  present  instrument,  the  sense- 
organ. 

It  is  too  plain  to  need  any  elaboration  that  those  who  phil- 
osophize as  do  all  our  opponents,  must  deny  the  whole  teach- 
ing of  the  Scriptures  concerning  the  angels.  If  they  are  pure 
spirits,  their  existence,  cognitions,  and  activities  contradict 
every  assertion  these  writers  advance. 

The  sleep  of  the  soul  is  inferred  from  such  Scriptures  as 
Scriptural  Argu-  these:  Death  is  called  a  sleep.  The  resur- 
ments  for  the  Sleep  of  rection  promised  is  frequently  that  of  the 
the  Soul.  man,   and   not  of  his   body  merely.     In  the 

famous  chapter,  i  Cor.  xv,  the  apostle  argues  for  the  resurrec- 
tion, as  though  it  were  the  Christian's  only  alternative  hope 
against  annihilation.  See  verses  i8,  19,  29-32.  This  implies, 
they  plead  ;  that  the  ressurrection  is  to  be  the  recall  of  both 
soul  and  body  out  of  the  grave.  For,  were  the  doctrine  of 
the  soul's  separate  immortality  true,  the  apostle  would  have 
seen  in  that  a  substantial  ground  for  hope  beyond  the  grave, 
whether  the  body  be  raised  or  not. 

I  reply,  that  the  phenomena  of  death,  the  absolute  quies- 


828  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

cence  of  the  corpse,   the  withdrawal  of  the 

These  Perversions  of  i    r  n    i  j  ■  j         t-    • 

Scripture  Answered.  ^°^^  irom  all  known  and  experienced  activi- 
ties of  this  life,  and  its  entrance  upon  its 
heavenly  rest,  are  abundantly  sufficient  to  justify  the  calling  of 
a  Christian  death  "  a  sleep,"  consistently  with  the  Bible-doc- 
trine of  the  separate  activity  of  the  soul.  This  is  evidently 
what  the  Scriptures  mean  by  the  figure.  That  the  man,  and 
not  the  body,  is  so  often  spoken  of  as  resurrected,  is  easily  ex- 
plained by  that  natural  figure,  by  which  sensuous  beings,  as  we 
all  are,  speak  of  a  corpse  as  "a  man."  But  all  doubt  is  cleared 
away,  by  such  passages  as  Phil,  iii  :  2i.  There,  the  resurrec- 
tion is  declared  to  be  a  "  changing  of  our  vile  body,  and  fash- 
ioning of  it  like  unto  His  glorious  body."  i  Cor.  xv  :  42. 
That  which  "  is  sown  in  corruption,"  is"  raised  in  incorruption." 
What  can  this  be,  but  the  body?  In  verse  42.  "We  have 
borne  the  image  of  the  earthy."  Wherein  ?  In  that  we  have 
animal  and  perishable  bodies.  Then  the  ego  and  the  body 
which  it  "  has  borne,"  are  distinct.  The  ingenious  cavil  from 
verses  18,  19,  and  29  to  32,  is  easily  solved  by  the  following 
facts :  The  final  immortality  which  the  Bible  teaches  is,  as  we 
have  distinctly  stated,  not  that  of  souls  disembodied,  but  of 
incorporate  men.  Hence  it  was  altogether  natural  for  the 
apostle  to  speak  of  our  prospect  for  an  immortality  as  identi- 
cal with  that  of  a  resurrection.  But  again,  (what  is  far  more 
important),  the  apostle's  argument  was  proceeding  upon  these 
truths  :  that  the  reality  of  Christ's  resurrection,  on  one  hand, 
was  vital  to  all  hope  of  a  redeemed  immortality  for  us  in  any 
form.  See  verses  12  to  18.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  fact 
of  Christ's  resurrection  involves  the  truth,  that  we  also  shall 
rise  as  He  did.  Under  this  state  of  the  argument,  it  is 
thoroughly  consistent  with  our  doctrine,  that  the  apostle  should 
argue  as  he  did.  The  apostle  does  argue,  that  practically,  the 
believer's  resurrection  is  his  only  alternative  hope  against 
"  perishing,"  but  he  does  not  argue  that  it  is  his  only  alternative 
hope  against  annihilation.  The  latter  idea  is  nowhere  enter- 
tained as  an  alternative. 

In  proof  that  ransomed  souls  are-  not  detained  in  uncon- 
sciousness in  the  grave,  we  advance  posi- 
proofs.'^^^^  -cnptuie-  ^j^g^y  ^^^  those  texts  which  show  us  such 
souls  already  in  heaven.  Here  all  the  pas- 
sages quoted  under  the  former  head  apply  :  We  need  not  con- 
sume time  in  repeating  them.  We  add,  that  the  protomartyr, 
Stephen,  when  dying  said,  with  the  full  light  of  inspiration  in 
his  mind  :  "  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit."  He  certainly  ex- 
pected an  immediate  glorification  with  Christ.  See  Acts  vii :  59. 
So,  in  Matt,  x  :  28,  the  distinction  of  spirit  and  body  is  indispu- 
tably made  ;  and  those  who  truly  fear  God  are  taught  that 
though  the  persecutor  may  kill  the  body,  the  soul  is  happy  in 
Christ.      In  Rev.  iv  :  4,  6,  with  v  :  9,    John  sees  the    redeemed 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  829 

already  amidst  the  raptures  of  heaven,  in  the  persons  of  the 
twenty-four  elders,  and  the  four  living  creatures.  So,  in  Rev. 
vi  :  9  to  II,  the  souls  of  the  martyrs  were  seen  under  (or  below) 
the  altar,  in  the  full  possession  of  their  intelligence  and  activity, 
and  adorned  with  their  white  robes.  All  this  was  before  the 
resurrection. 

It  is  the  glory  of  the  gospel,  that  it  gives  a  victory  over 
'  death.     Over  the   true   man,  the  being  who 

Never  feels' Death.  ^  feels,  and  hopes  and  fears,  it  has  no  domin- 
ion. The  body  alone  falls  under  its  stroke  ; 
but  when  it  does  so,  it  is  unconscious  of  that  stroke.  What- 
ever there  may  be  in  the  grave,  with  its  gloom  and  worm,  that 
is  repulsive  to  man  ;  with  all  that  the  true  Ego  has  no  part. 
While  the  worms  destroy  the  unconscious  flesh,  the  conscious 
spirit  has  soared  away  to  the  light  and  rest  of  its  Saviour's 
bosom. 


LECTURE   LXX. 

THE   RESURRECTION. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  What  were  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  Heathens,  and  what  of  the  Jews,  on 
this  subject?   Does  nature  furnisli  any  analogy  in  favor  of  it  ? 

Dr.  Christian  Knapp,  §  151.     Hodge  Theol.,  pt.  iv,  g  i,  2.     Dick,   Lect.  82. 

2.  State  the  precise  meaning  of  the  Scripture  doctine.     What  will  be  the  quali- 
ties of  our  resurrection  bodies  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xx,  Qu.   i,  2,  9.     Knapp,  ^  152.  153.     Dick,  Lect.  82. 

3.  Will  the  resurrection  bodies  be  the  same  which  men  have  now  ?     In  what 
sense  the  same  ?     Discuss  objections. 

Turrettin  Qu.  2.     Dick,  Lect.  82.     Watson's  Theol.  Inst.,  ch.  29. 

4.  Prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection,  from   the  Old  Testament ;  from  the 
New. 

Turrettin,  Qu.  I.    Dick,  Lect.  82. 

5.  How  is  the  resurrection  of  the  Saints,  and  how  is  that  of  sinners,  related  to 
the  i-esurrection  of  Christ  ? 

Dick,  Lect.  82.     Breckinridge  Theol.,  Vol.  i,  bk,  i,  ch.  6, 

6.  What  will  be  the  time  ?     Will  there  be  a  double  resurrection  ? 

Turrettin,  Qu.  3.  Dick.  Lect.  82.  Scott,  Com.  on  Rev.,  ch.  20.  Brown's 
Second  Advent.  Knapp,  ^  154.  Hodge,  as  above,  chs.  3,  4.  See  on  whole, 
Ridgley,  Qu.  87.  Geo.  Bush  on  the  Resurrection.  Davies'  Sermons.  Young's 
Last  Day. 

'  I  ^THE   definite  philosophic  speculations  among  the  ancient 
heathen  all  discarded  the  doctrine  of  a  proper  resurrec- 
tion ;    so    that    the    Bible    stands     alone    in 
l;^^!^^^^.    acknowledging   the    share    of  the    body    in 
man  s  immortality.     It  is  true  that  the  poets 
(Hesiod,  Homer,  Virgil)  expressing  the   popular  and   tradition- 
ary belief,  (in  this  case,  as  in  that  of  the  soul's  immortality,  less 
incorrect  than   the    philosopher's    speculations),    speak    of  the 


830  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

future  life  as  a  bodily  one,  of  members,  food,  labours,  &c.,  in 
Tartarus  and  Elysium.  But  it  is  difficult  to  say  how  far  these 
sensuous  representations  of  the  future  existence  were  due  to 
mere  inaccuracy  and  grossness  of  conception,  or  how  far  to 
perspicuous  ideas  of  a  bodily  existence  conjoined  with  the  spirit- 
ual. The  Brahmins  speak  of  many  transmigrations  and  incar- 
nations, of  their  deified  men ;  but  none  of  them  are  resurrec- 
tions proper.  The  Pythagoreans  and  Platonists  dreamed  of  an 
6'//^ij.a,  an  etherial,  semi-spiritual  investment,  which  the  glorified 
spirit,  after  its  metempsychoses  are  finished,  develops  for  itself. 
The  pantheistic  sects,  whether  Buddhists  or  Stoics,  of  course 
utterly  rejected  the  idea  of  a  bodily  existence  after  death, 
when  they  denied  even  a  personal  existence  of  the  soul. 

But  the  Jews,  with  the  exception  of   the  Sadducees  and 
Essenses,  seem  to  have  held   firmly  to  the 

What  Tews  Believed     j       .    •  -nt  t  •  1 

it  ■^  doctrine.     JNor  can  1  see  any  evidence,  ex- 

cept the  prejudice  of  hypothesis  and  fancy, 
for  the  notion  of  Knapp,  and  many  Germans,  that  their  behef 
in  this  doctrine  dated  only  from  the  time  of  the  Babylonish 
captivity.  There  is  no  historical  evidence.  If  the  proof-texts 
of  the  earlier  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  perversely  explained  away, 
and  those  of  the  Maccabees,  &c.,  admitted,  there  is  some  show 
of  plausibility.  But  it  is  far  better  reasoning  to  say  that  this 
unquestioning  belief  in  the  doctrine  by  the  Jews,  is  evidence 
that  they  understood  their  earlier  as  well  as  their  later  Scrip- 
tures to  teach  it.  The  evidence  of  the  state  of  opinion  among 
them,  and  especially  among  the  Pharisees,  is  found  in  their 
uninspired  waitings :  2  Mac.  vii  :  9,  &c.,  xii  :  43,  45  ;  Josephus 
and  Philo,  and  in  New  Testament  allusions  to  their  ideas.  See 
Matt,  xxii  ;  Luke  xx ;  John  xi  :  24 ;  Acts  xxiii  :  6,  %  ;  Heb. 
xi  :  35.  But  the  doctrine  was  a  subject  of  mocking  skepticism 
to  most  of  the  speculative  Pagans  ;  as  the  interlocutor  in  Minu- 
tius  FeHx'  Octavius,  Pliny,  jr.,  Lucian,  Celsus,  &c.  See  Acts 
xvii  :  32  ;  xxvi  :  8,  24. 

Hence,  we  may  infer  that  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection 
is  purely  one  of  revelation.  Analogies  and 
^^  No  Natural  Proofs  probable  arguments  have  been  sought  in  favor 
of  it,  as  by  the  early  fathers  and  later  waiters  ; 
but  while  some  rise  in  dignity  above  the  fable  of  the  Phoenix, 
non2  of  them  can  claim  to  be  demonbtrations.  The  fact  that 
all  nature  moves  in  cycles,  restoring  a  state  of  things  again 
which  had  passed  away ;  that  the  trees  bud  after  the  sterility 
and  mimic  death  of  winter  ;  that  moons  wax  again  after  they 
have  waned ;  that  sun  and  stars,  after  setting  in  the  west,  rise 
again  in  the  east;  that  seeds  germinate  and  reproduce  their 
kind ;  can  scarcely  be  called  a  proper  analogy  ;  for  in  all  these 
cases,  there  is  no  proper  destruction,  by  a  disorganization  of 
atoms,  but  a  mere  return  of  the  same  complex  body,  without  a 
moment's  breach  of  its  organic   unity,   into  the  same  state  in 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  83 1 

which  it  had  previously  been,  If  we  were  perfectly  honest,  we 
should  rather  admit  that  the  proper  analogies  of  nature  are 
against  the  doctrine  ;  for  when  a  seed  germinates  that  particu- 
lar seed  is  produced  no  more  ;  there  is,  in  what  comes  from  it, 
only  a  generic,  not  a  numerical  identity.  When  the  tree  really 
perishes,  its  mould  and  moisture  and  gases  are  never  recon- 
structed into  that  same  tree,  but  pass  irrevocably  into  other 
vegetable  forms.  Dick  supposes  that  the  argument  said  to  have 
been  stated  B.  C.  450,  by  Phocylides,  the  Milesian,  is  more 
plausible  ;  that  inasmuch  as  God's  wisdom  led  Him  to  introduce 
a  gemis  of  rational  beings,  of  body  and  spirit  combined,  the 
same  wisdom  will  always  lead  him  to  perpetuate  that  kind.  But 
if,  after  the  soul's  departure,  the  body  were  never  reanimated, 
man  would  become  simply  an  inferior  angel,  and  the  gemis 
would  be  obliterated.  To  this,  also,  we  may  reply ;  that  this 
argument  is  not  valid  until  it  is  also  shown  that  the  wisdom, 
which  called  this  gemis  of  complex  beings  into  existence,  will 
not  be  satisfied  by  its  temporary  continuance  as  a  separate 
gemis.  But  this  we  can  never  prove  by  mere  reason.  For  in- 
stance :  the  same  reasoning  would  prove  equally  well,  both  an 
immortality  and  a  bodily  resurrection,  for  any  of  the  genera  of 
brutes !  Another  argument  is  presented  by  Turrettin  from  the 
justice  of  God,  which,  if  possessed  of  feeble  weight  by  itself,  at 
least  has  the  advantage  of  harmonizing  with  Bible  represen- 
tations. It  is,  that  the  justice  of  God  is  more  appropriately 
satisfied,  by  punishing  and  rewarding  souls  in  the  very  bodies, 
and  with  the  whole  personal  identity,  with  which  they  sinned 
(Comp.  2  Cor.  v  :  lo)  or  obeyed. 

In   Scripture  the    image   of   a   resurrection,    a.\^daraacz,    is 
undoubtedly  used   sometimes  in  a  figurative 

2.  True  Meaning  of   gg^se,  to  describe  regeneration,  (John  v  :  25  ; 
Kesurrection.  '  .  ^     .  ^-'.         ^ 

Kph.  v  :  14,)  and  sometmies,  restoration  from 

calamity  and  captivity  to  prosperity  and  joy.     (Ezek.  xxxvii  : 

12  :  Is.  xxvi  :  19).     But  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  words  are 

intended  to  be  used  in  a  literal  sense,  of  the  restoration  of  the 

same  body  that  dies  to  life,  by  its  reunion  to  the  soul.     This 

then  is  the  doctrine.     For  when  the  resurrection   of  the  dead, 

{utxri(7)v)  of  those  that  are  in  their  graves,  of  those  that  sleep  in 

the   dust   of  the  earth,   is   declared,   the  sense   is  unequivocal. 

Without  at  this  time  particularizing  Scripture  proofs,  we  assert 

that  they  mean  to  describe  a  bodily  existence  as  literally  as 

when  they  speak  of  man's  soul  in  this  life,  as  residing  in  a  body  ; 

and  this,  though  wonderfully   changed   in  qualities,  the  same 

body,  in  the  proper,  honest   sense  of  the  word  same,  which  the . 

soul  laid  down  at  death.     This  resurrection  will  embrace  all  the 

individuals  of  the  human   race,  good  and  bad,    except  those 

whose  bodies  have  already  passed  into  heaven,  and  those  of  the 

last  generation,  who  will  be  alive  on  the  earth  at  the  last  trump. 

But  on  the  bodies  of  these  the  resurrection   change  will  pass, 


832  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

though  they  do  not  die.  The  signal  of  this  resurrection  is  to- 
be  the  "  last  trump,"  an  expression  probably  taken  from  the 
transactions  at  Sinai;  (Exod.  xix  :  16,  19  ;  cf.  Heb.  xii  :  26), 
which  may,  very  possibly,  be  some  literal,  audible  summons, 
sounded  through  the  whole  atmosphere  of  the  world.  But  the 
agent  will  be  Christ,  by  His  direct  and  almighty  power,  with  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

The  qualities  of  the  resurrection  bodies  of  the  saints  are 
described  in  i  Cor.  xv  :  42,  50,  with  as  much 
reSon  Bodie°s^.  ^'''"'"  particularity,  probably,  as  we  can  compre- 
hend. Whereas  the  body  is  buried  in  a  state 
of  dissolution ;  it  is  raised  indissoluble,  no  longer  liable  to  dis- 
organization, by  separation  of  particles,  either  because  pro- 
tected therefrom  by  the  special  power  of  God,  or  by  the  absence 
of  assailing  chemical  forces.  It  is  buried,  disfigured  and  loath- 
some. It  will  be  raised  beautiful.  Since  it  is  a  literal  material 
body  that  is  raised,  it  is  far  the  most  natural  to  suppose  that  the 
glory  predicated  of  it,  is  literal,  material  beauty.  As  to  its 
kind,  see  Matt,  xiii  :  43  ;  Phil,  iii  :  21,  with  Rev.  i  :  13,  14.  Some 
may  think  that  it  is  unworthy  of  God's  redemption  to  suppose 
it  conferring  an  advantage  so  trivial  and  sensuous  as  personal 
beauty.  But  is  not  this  a  remnant  of  that  Gnostic  or  Neo-Pla- 
tonic  asceticism,  which  cast  off  the  body  itself  as  too  worthless 
to  be  an  object  of  redeeming  power?  We  know  that  sanctified 
affections  now  always  beautify  and  ennoble  the  countenance. 
See  Exod.  xxxiv  :  29,  30.  And  if  God  did  not  deem  it  too 
trivial  for  His  attention,  to  clothe  the  landscape  with  verdure,  to 
cast  every  form  of  nature  in  lines  of  grace,  to  dye  the  skies 
with  purest  azure,  and  to  paint  the  sun  and  stars  with  splendour, 
in  order  to  gratify  the  eyes  of  His  children  here,  we  may  assume 
that  He  will  condescend  to  beautify  even  the  bodies  of  His 
saints,  in  that  world  where  all  is  made  perfect.  Next,  the  body 
is  buried  in  weakness  ;  it  has  just  given -the  crowning  evidence 
of  feebleness,  by  yielding  to  death.  It  will  be  raised  in  immor- 
tal vigour,  so  as  to  perform  its  functions  with  perfect  facility,  and 
without  fatigue. 

And  last ;  it  is  buried  an  animal  body  ;  i.  e.,  this  is  the 
"Natural  Body"  character  it  has  hitherto  had.  The  aMfia 
and  "Spiritual  Body;"  ^^'r/r/lv^  is  Unfortunately  translated  "natural 
body"  in  the  English  version.  The  Apostle 
here  evidently  avails  himself  of  the  popular  Greek  distinction, 
growing  out  of  the  currency  of  Pythagorean  and  Platonic  phi- 
losophy, to  express  his  distinction,  without  meaning  to  endorse 
their  psychology.  The  aioii.a  (l"jyr/.o\^  is  evidently  the  body  as 
characterized  chiefly  by  its  animal  functions.  What  these  are, 
there  can  be  little  doubt,  if  we  keep  in  mind  the  established 
Greek  sense  of  the  4"-''/.'^>  viz  :  the  functions  of  the  appetite  and 
sense.  Then  the  aiiiiw.  rz'ueoixa.Taoi^  must  mean  not  a  body  now 
material,  as  the  Swedenborgians,   &c.,  claim  (a  positive  contra- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  833 

diction  and  impossibiJity),  but  a  body  actuated  only  by  pro- 
cesses of  intellection  and  moral  affection  ;  for  these,  Paul's  read- 
ers supposed  were  the  proper  processes  of  the  -vvjpia  or  vob^. 
But  the  Apostle  vs.  44,  50,  defines  his  own  meaning.  To  show 
that  "  there  is  an  animal  body,  and  a  spiritual  body  ;"  that  it  is 
no  iancy  nor  impossibility ,*he  points  to  the  fact  that  such  have 
already  existed,  in  the  case  of  Adam  and  his  natural  seed,  and 
of  Christ.  And  as  we  were  federally  connected,  first  with 
Adam,  and  then  with  Christ,  we  bear  first  the  animal  body, 
( Adam's  )  and  then  the  spiritual  (  Christ's ).  And  Christ's 
humanity  also,  during  His  humihation,  passed  through  that  first 
stage,  to  the  second ;  because  he  assumed  all  the  innocent 
weaknesses  and  affections  of  a  literal  man.  Our  <Jcou.a  -vvjiw.- 
Tcy.ov^  then,  is  defined  to  be  what  Christ's  glorified  body  now 
in  Heaven  is.  Complete  this  definition  by  what  we  find  in  Matt. 
xxii  :  30.  The  spiritual  body  then,  is  one  occupied  and  actu- 
ated only  by  the  spiritual  processes  of  a  sanctified  soul ;  but 
which  neither  smarts  with  pain,  nor  feels  .fatigue,  nor  has  appe- 
tites, nor  takes  any  literal,  material  supplies  therefor. 

It  seems  Qwtry  way  reasonable   to  suppose  that  while  the 
bodies  of  the  wicked  will  be  raised  without 

oflSnir'°"  ^°'^'^'    ^^^    gl°^>'  o^  splendour  of  the  saints,  they 
also  will  be  no  longer  animal  bodies,  and  will 
be  endued  with  immortal  vigour  to  endure. 

The  Scriptures  plainly  teach  that  our  resurrection  bodies  will 
be  the  bodies  we  now  have,  only  modified  ; 

Rdslt^Sool.*^^''*^'''  t^^^t  ^s-  t^^at  they  will  be  substantially  identi- 
cal. This  follows  from  the  divine  justice,  so 
far  as  it  prompts  God  to  work  a  resurrection.  For  if  we  have 
not  the  very  body  in  which  we  sinned,  when  called  to  judg- 
ment, tliat  "every  man  may  receive  the  things  done  in  the  body," 
there  will  be  no  relevancy  in  the  punishment,  so  far  as  it  falls  on 
the  body.  The  same  truth  follows  from  the  believer's  union  to 
Christ.  If  He  redeemed  our  bodies,  must  they  not  be  the  very 
ones  we  have  here?  (i  Cor.  iii :  16  ;  vi :  15).  It  appears  evidently, 
from  Christ's  resurrection,  which  is  the  earnest,  exemplar,  and 
pledge  of  ours.  For  in  His  case,  the  body  that  was  raised  was  the 
very  one  that  died  and  was  buried.  But  if,  in  our  case,  the  body 
that  dies  is  finally  dissipated,  and  another  is  reconstructed,  there 
is  small  resemblance  indeed  to  our  Saviour's  resurrection.  This 
leads  us  to  remark,  fourth,  that  the  very  words  d.vlarr^iu,  duda- 
To.at::  plainly  imply  the  rearing  of  the  same  thing  that  fell ; 
otherwise  there  is  an  abuse  of  language  in  applying  them  to  a 
proper  creation.  Last,  the  language  of  Scripture  in  Dan.  xii  ; 
2  ;  John  V  :  28,  29  :  i  Cor.  xv  :  21,  53,  54  ;  i  Thess.  iv  :  16  ;  it 
is  that  which  is  "  in  the  dust  of  the  earth,"  "  in  the  //v-^'/^s^ft," 
the  vky.pot ;  corpses,  which  is  raised.  It  is  "  this  mortal  "  which 
"  puts  on  immortality."  From  the  days  of  the  Latin  Fathers, 
and  their  speculative  Pagan  opposers,  certain  objections  have 
53* 


834  .  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

been  pompously  raised  against  such  a  resurrection,  as  though 
it  were  intrinsically  absurd.  They  may  be  found  reproduced  by 
Geo.  Bush  on  the  Resurrection. 

The  general  objection  is  from  the  incredible  greatness  of 
Objection  From  ^^^  work;  that  ^nce  the  particles  that  com- 
Wonderfulness,  An-  posed  human  bodies  are  scattered  asunder 
swered.  ]-,y    almost    every    conceivable    agency,    fire, 

winds,  waters,  birds  and  beasts  of  prey,  mingled  with  the  soil 
of  the  fields,  and  dissolved  in  the  waters  of  the  ocean,  it  is  un- 
reasonable to  expect  they  will  be  assembled  again.  We  reply, 
(reserving  the  question  whether  a  proper  corporeal  identity  im- 
plies the  presence  of  all  the  constituent  particles ;  of  which 
more  anon),  that  this  objection  is  founded  only  on  a  denial  of 
God's  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  almighty  power.  The 
work  of  the  resurrection  does  indeed  present  a  most  wondrous 
and  glorious  display  of  divine  power.  But  to  God  all  things  are 
easy.  We  may  briefly  reply,  that  to  all  who  believe  in  a  spec- 
ial Providence,  there  is  a  standing  and  triumphant  answer  visi- 
ble to  our  eyes.  It  is  in  the  existence  of  our  present  bodies. 
Are  they  not  formed  by  God  ?  Are  they  not  also  formed  from 
"  the  dust  of  the  earth  ?  "  And  it  is  not  any  one  hundred  and 
fifty  pounds  of  earth,  which  God  moulds  into  a  body  of  that 
weight;  but  there  is  a  most  wonderful,  extensive,  and  nice 
selection  of  particles,  where  a  million  of  atoms  are  assorted 
over  and  rejected,  for  one  that  is  selected ;  and  that  from 
thousands  of  miles.  In  my  body  there  are  atoms,  probably, 
that  came  from  Java  (in  coffee),  and  from  Cuba  or  Manilla  (in 
sugar),  and  from  the  western  prairies  (in  pork),  and  from  the 
savannahs  of  Carolina  (in  rice),  and  from  the  green  hills  of 
Western  Virginia  (in  beef  and  butter),  and  from  our  own  fields 
(in  fruits).  Do  you  say,  the  selection  and  aggregation  have 
been  accomplished  gradually,  by  sundry  natural  laws  of  vege- 
tation and  nutrition  ?  Yea,  but  what  are  natural  laws  ?  Only 
regular  modes  of  God's  working  through  matter,  which  He  has 
in  His  wisdom  proposed  to  Himself?  If  God  actually  does 
this  thing  now,  why  may  He  not  do  another  thing  just  like  it, 
only  more  quickly? 

But  an  objection  supposed  to  be  still  more  formidable,  is 
derived  from  the  supposed  flux  of  particles 
AnswS'^  °^^''"°"  in  the  human  body,  and  the  cases  in  which 
particles  which  belonged  to  one  man  at  his 
death,  become  parts  of  the  structure  of  another  man's  body, 
through  cannibalism,  or  the  derivation  by  beasts  from  the 
mould  enriched  with  human  dust,  which  beasts  are  in  turn  con- 
sumed by  men,  &c.,  &c.  Now,  since  one  material  atom  cannot 
be  in  two  places  at  the  same  time,  the  resurrection  of  the  same 
bodies,  say  they,  is  a  physical  impossibility.  And  if  the  flux 
of  particles  be  admitted,  which  shall  the  man  claim,  as  com- 
posing his  bodily  identity ;  those  he  had  first,  or  those  he  had 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  835 

last :  or  all  he  ever  had  ?  To  the  first  of  these  questions,  we 
reply,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  a  particle  of  matter  com- 
posing a  portion  of  a  human  corpse,  has  ever  been  assimilated 
by  another  human  body.  It  is  only  assumed  that  it  may  be  so. 
But  now,  inasmuch  as  the  truth  of  Scripture  has  been  demon- 
strated by  an  independent  course  of  moral  evidences,  and  it 
asserts  the  same  body  shall  be  raised,  if  there  is,  indeed,  any 
difficulty  about  this  question  of  the  atoms,  the  burden  of  proof 
lies  upon  the  objector;  and  he  must  demonstrate  that  the  diffi- 
culty exists,  and  is  insuperable.  It  is  not  sufficient  merely  to 
surmise  that  it  may  exist.  Now,  I  repeat,  a  surmise  is  good 
enough  to  meet  a  surmise.  Let  me  assume  this  hypothesis,  that 
it  may  be  a  physiological  law,  that  a  molecule,  once  assimilated 
and  vitalized  by  a  man  (or  other  animal),  undergoes  an  influ- 
ence which  renders  it  afterwards  incapable  of  assimilation  by 
another  being  of  the  same  species.  This,  indeed,  is  not  without 
plausible  evidence  from  analogy :  witness,  for  instance,  the  fer- 
tility of  a  soil  to  another  crop,  when  a  proper  rotation  is  pur- 
sued, which  had  become  barren  as  to  the  first  crop  too  long 
repeated.  But,  if  there  is  any  such  law,  the  case  supposed  by 
the  objector  against  the  resurrection,  never  occurs.  But,  second: 
in  answer  to  both  objections,  it  can  never  be  shown  that  the 
numerical  identity  of  all  the  constituent  atoms  is  necessary  to 
that  bodily  sameness,  which  is  asserted  by  the  Bible  of  our 
resurrection  bodies.  We  are  under  no  forensic  obligation  what- 
ever, to  define  precisely  in  what  that  sameness  consists,  but  take 
our  stand  here,  that  the  Bible,  being  written  in  popular  lan- 
guage, when  it  says  our  resurrection  bodies  will  be  the  same,  it 
means  precisely  what  popular  consciousness  and  common 
language  apprehend,  when  it  is  said  my  body  at  forty  is  the 
same  body  grown  stronger,  which  I  had  at  fifteen.  Let  that 
meaning  be  whatever  it  may  be,  if  this  doctrine  of  the  flux  of 
particles,  and  this  possibility  of  a  particle  that  once  belonged 
to  one  man  becoming  a  part  of  another,  prove  that  our  resur- 
rection bodies  cannot  be  the  same  that  died,  they  equally  prove 
that  my  body  cannot  now  be  the  body  I  had  some  years  ago, 
for  that  flux,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  it,  has  already  occurred ; 
and  there  i;  just  as  much  probability  that  I  have  been  nourished 
with  a  few  particles  from  a  potatoe,  manured  with  the  hair  of 
some  man  who  is  still  living,  as  that  two  men  will  both  claim 
the  same  particles  at  the  resurrection.  But  my  consciousness 
tells  me  (the  most  demonstrative  of  all  proof),  that  I  have  had 
the  same  body  all  the  timfe,  so  that,  if  these  famous  objections 
disprove  a  resurrection,  they  equally  contradict  consciousness. 
You  will  notice  that  I  propound  no  theory  as  to  what  consti- 
tutes precisely  our  consciousness  of  bodily  identity,  as  it  is 
wholly  unnecessary  to  our  argument  that  I  should ;  and  that  I 
do  not  undertake  to  define  precisely  how  the  resurrection  body 
will  be  constituted  in  this  particular;  and   this  is  most  proper 


836  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

for  me,  because  the  Bible  propounds  no  theory  on  this  point. 

But  if  curiosity   leads  you    to    enquire,   I   answer   that    it 

appears   to  me    our  consciousness  of  bodily 

rine*Life  What''^     "'    identity  (as   to   a   limb,  or  member,  or  organ 

of  sense,   for  instance)  does   not  include  an 

apprehension   of  the   numerical   identy   of    all    the  constituent 

atoms  all  the  while,  but  that  it  consists  of  an  apprehension  of 

a  continued  relation  of  the  organism  of  the  limb  or  organ  to 

our  mental  consciousness  all  the  time,  implying  also  that  there 

is  no  suden  change  of  a  majority,  or  even  any  large  fraction  of 

the  constituent  atoms  thereof  at  any  one  time. 

In  presenting  the  Bible-proof,  nothing  more  will  be  done, 
^    ,  than  to  cite  the  passages,  with  such  word  of 

4.  Proofs  That  Bod-  ,  ,•  u  4.         1 

ies  Will  Rise.  explanation  as    may  be   necessary    to  show 

their  application.  If  we  believe  our  Saviour, 
implications  of  this  doctrine  appear  at  a  very  early  stage  of  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures  ;  for  indeed  the  sort  of  immortality 
implied  all  along,  is  the  immortality  of  man,  body  and  soul. 
(See  then  Exod.  iii  :  6,  as  explained  in  Matt,  xxii  :  31,  32; 
Mark  xii  :  26,  27).  The  next  passage  is  Job  xix  :  26,  which  I 
claim  qidciinque  vtilt,  as  containing  a  clear  assertion  of  a  resur- 
rection. In  Ps.  xxvi  :  9,  ii,  (expounded  Acts  ii  :  29,  32  ; 
xiii  :  36,  '},']')  David  is  made  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  foretell 
Christ's  resurrection.  Doubtless,  the  Psalmist,  if  he  distinctly 
knew  that  he  was  personating  Christ  m  this  language,  appre- 
hended his  own  resurrection  as  a  corollary  of  Christ's.  Ps. 
xvii  :  15  probably  alludes  also  to  a  resurrection  in  the  phrase  : 
"  awake  in  thy  likeness  ;  "  for  what  awakes,  except  the  body  ? 
Nothing  else  sleeps.  So  Is.  xxv  :  8,  may  be  seen  interpreted 
in  I  Cor.  xv  :  54 ;  Dan.  xii  :  2.     Both  teach  the  same  doctrine. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  proofs  of  bodily  resurrection 
are  still  more  numerous  and  explicit.  The  following  are  the 
chief;  Matt,  xxii  :  31,  &c. ;  Mark  xii  :  26,  27  ;  John  v :  21,  29  ; 
vi  :  39,  40  ;  xi  :  24  ;  Acts  as  above  ;  i  Cor.  xv ;  i  Thess, 
iv  :  13  to  end;   2  Tim.  ii :  8;   Phil,  iii  :  21  ;   Heb.  vi  :  2  ;  xi  :  35. 

Other  strong  Scriptural  proofs  are  urged  by  the  Reformed 
divines,  which  need  little  more  than  a  mere  statement  here. 
The  resurrection  of  Christ  is  both  the  example  and  proof  of 
ours.  I  Cor.  xv  :  20;  i  Peter  i  :  3.  First,  it  demonstrates  that 
the  work  is  feasible  for  God.  Second,  it  demonstrates  the  suf- 
ficiency and  acceptance  of  Christ's  satisfaction  for  His  peo- 
ple's guilt :  but  bodily  death  is  a  part  of  our  penalty  therefor : 
and  must  be  repaired  when  we  are  fully  invested  with  the 
avails  of  that  purchase.  Third :  Scripture  shows  such  a  union 
between  Christ,  the  Head,  and  His  members;  that  our  glorifica- 
tion must  result  as  His  does,      i  Cor.  vi  :  15. 

The  exposition  given  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  by  our 
Saviour  Himself  in  Matt,  xxii :  31,  &c.,  shows  that  it  includes  a 
resurrection  for  the  body.     This  covenant,  Christ  there  teaches 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  837 

US,  is  first,  perpetual :  death  does  not  sever  it.  But  second,  it 
was  a  covenant  not  between  God  and  angels  or  ghosts  ;  but 
between  Him  and  the  incorporate  men,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob.  Then,  its  consummation  must  restore  them  to  their 
incorporate  state. 

The  inhabitation  of  our  bodies  by  the  Holy  Ghost  implies 
the  redemption  of  the  body  also.  Although  not  the  primary 
seat  of  sanctification,  the  body,  thus  closely  dedicated  to  the 
Spirit's  indwelling,  will  not  be  left   in  the  dust.     Rom.  viii  :  ii. 

Last,  we  have  seen  Turrettin  unfold  the  reasonableness  of 
men's  being  judged  in  the  bodies  in  which  they  have  lived. 
The  rewards  and  penalties  cannot,  in  any  other  way,  be  so 
appropriate,  as  when  God  makes  the  bodily  members  which 
were  abused  or  consecrated,  the  inlets  of  the  deserved  penalties, 
or  the  free  rewards.     See  i  Cor.  v  :  lo. 

Some  divines,  as  e.  g.  Breckinridge,  say  that  the  resur- 
rection of  both  saints  and  sinners  is  of 
m'ttrsua^Chfsf  Christ's  purchase  quoting  ,  Cor.  xv  :  22, 
makmg  the  "  all  mean  the  whole  human 
race.  But  we  teach,  that  while  Christ,  as  King  in  Zion,  com- 
mands the  resurrection  of  both,  it  is  in  different  relations.  The 
resurrection  of  His  people  being  a  gift  of  His  purchase,  is  effectu- 
ated in  them  by  the  union  to  Him,  and  is  one  result  of  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  resurrection  of  the  evil  is  an 
act  of  pure  dominion,  effected  in  them  by  His  avenging  sove- 
reignty. The  other  idea  would  represent  the  wicked  also,  as 
vitally  connected  with  Christ,  by  a  mystical  union.  But  if  so, 
why  does  not  that  union  sanctify  and  save  ?  Are  we  authorized 
to  say  that,  had  Christ  not  come,  there  would  have  been  no 
resurrection  unto  damnation  for  Adam's  fallen  race  at  all  ? 
Moreover,  that  opinion  puts  an  unauthorized  and  dangerous 
sense  upon  i  Cor.  xv  :  22,  et  sini. 

The  wisdom  and  modesty  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
are  displayed  in  the  caution  with  which  they 
Second  Adve"ir  ^""^  ^P^^^  o"  ^^^^e  difficult  subjects.  Their  full 
discussion  would  lead  into  a  thorough  investi- 
gation of  that  vast  and  intricate  subject,  unfulfilled  prophecy. 
Nothing  more  can  be  attempted  here,  than  a  brief  statement  of 
competing  schemes.  They  each  embrace,  and  attempt  to 
adjust,  the  following  points  :  The  millennium,  or  thousand  years' 
reign  of  Christ  on  earth  :  Christ's  second  advent :  The  destruc- 
tion of  the  Kingdom  of  Satan  among  men  :  The  resurrection  of 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked  :  and  the  general  judgment  and 
final  consummation.  That  doctrine  which  we  hold,  and  which 
we  assert  to  be  the  Apostolic  and  Church  doctrine,  teaches,  just 
as  much  as  the  pre-Adventists,  the  literal  and  personal  second 
advent  of  Christ,  and  we  hold,  with  the  Apostolic  Christians, 
that  it  is,  next  to  heaven,  the  dearest  and  most  glorious 
of  the  believer's   hopes  :    as   bringing   the  epoch  of    his  full 


838  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

deliverance  from  death,  and  full  introduction  into  the  society  of 
his  adored  Saviour,  This  hope  of  a  literal  second  advent  we 
base  on  such  Scriptures  as  these  :  Acts  i  :  11  :  iii  :  20,  21  ;  Heb. 
ix  :  28  ;  I  Thess.  iv  :  15,  16  ;  Phil,  iii  :  20  ;  Matt,  xxvi  :  64,  &c., 
&c.  Before  this  second  advent,  the  following  events  must  have 
occurred.  The  development  and  secular  overthrow  of  Anti- 
christ, (2  Thess.  ii  :  3  to  9  ;  Dan.  vii  :  24-26  ;  Rev.  xvii,  xviii  :) 
which  is  the  Papacy.  The  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  to  all 
nations,  and  the  general  triumph  of  Christianity  over  all  false 
religions,  in  all  nations.  (Ps.  Ixxii :  8-1 1  ;  Is.  ii  :  2-4  ;  Dan.  ii  : 
44,45  ;  vii:  14  ;  Matt,  xxviii  :  19,  20  ;  Rom.  xi  :  12,  15,  25  ; 
Mark  xiii :  10 ;  Matt,  xxiv  :  14).  The  general  and  national  return 
of  the  Jews  to  the  Christian  Church.  (Rom.  xi  :  25,  26).  And 
then  a  partial  relapse  from  this  state  of  high  prosperity,  into 
unbelief  and  sin.  (Rev.  xx  :  7,  8).  During  this  partial  decline, 
at  a  time  unexpected  to  formal  Christians  and  the  profane,  and 
not  to  be  expressly  foreknown  by  any  true  saint  on  earth,  the 
second  Advent  of  Christ  will  take  place,  in  the  manner  described 
in  I  Thess.  It  will  be  immediately  followed  by  the  resurrection 
of  all  the  dead,  the  redeemed  dead  taking  the  precedence. 
Then  the  generation  of  men  living  at  the  time  will  be  changed 
(without  dying)  into  their  immortal  bodies,  the  world  will 
undergo  its  great  change  by  fire,  the  general  judgment  will  be 
held ;  and  last,  the  saved  and  the  lost  will  severally  depart  to 
their  final  abodes,  the  former  to  be  forever  with  the  Lord,  the 
the  latter  with  Satan  and  his  angels. 

It  is  not  easy  to  state  the  scheme  of  the  pre-Adventists, 
because  they  are  so  inconsistent  with  each  other,  that  a  part  of 
their  company  will  disclaim  some  points  of  any  statement  which 
is  made  for  them.  The  following  propositions,  however,  are 
held  by  the  most  of  pre-Adventists.  The  present  dispensation 
of  the  Gospel  is  neither  sufficient  nor  designed  for  the  general 
conversion  of  the  world.  Missionary  efforts  can  only  prepare 
the  way  for  Christ's  coming,  by  gathering  out  of  the  doomed 
mass  the  elect  scattered  among  them.  For,  Christ's  advent  may 
be  at  any  time,  before  any  general  evangelization  of  either 
Jews  or  Gentiles  ;  and  when  He  comes,  the  wicked  will  be 
destroyed  by  it,  and  not  converted.  At  this  advent,  the  saints, 
or  the  more  illustrious  of  them,  at  least,  will  be  raised  from  the 
dead.  The  converted  Jews  will  return  to  Canaan,  the  temple 
will  be  rebuilt  and  its  service  restored  ;  and  the  incarnate  Mes- 
siah will  reign  a  thousand  years,  (or  a  long  cycle  symbolized  by 
a  thousand  years,)  on  earth,  with'  the  risen  saints.  This  will  be 
the  millennium  of  Rev.  xxth.  At  the  end  of  this  time,  the 
general  resurrection  of  the  wicked  will  take  place,  and  be  fol- 
lowed by  the  general  judgment  and  final  consummation. 

The  boast  is:  that,  they  are  the  only  faithful  party  in 
expounding  prophecy  according  to  its  literal  meaning :  and 
that  the  daily  expectation  of  this  advent  is  exceedingly  promo- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  839 

tive  of  faith  and  holy  Hving.  I  can  attempt  no  more  than  to  set 
down  for  you  a  few  leading  remarks. 

Of  these  the  first  is  :  that  though  it  is  now  the  fashion  for 

these  pre-Adventists  to  claim  the  special 
Jlt^^TcZlsT::    h-^<^/>^s    of  orthodoxy    their    system  is  dis- 

tmctly  agamst  that  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession. Not  only  does  that  standard  ignore  it  totally :  it 
expressly  asserts  the  contrary  :  Ch.  viii  :  §  4.  "  Christ  shall 
return  to  judge  men  and  angels  at  the  end  of  the  world."  (Ch. 
xxxii  :  §  2).  "At  the  last  day  ...  all  the  dead  shall  be 
raised  up."  (Chap,  xxxiii  :  §  3).  "  So  will  He  have  that  day 
unknown  to  men,"  &c.  (Larger  Cat.  Qu.  56).  "  Christ  shall 
come  again  at  the  last  day,"  &c.,  Qu.  86,  8y.  '■  The  members 
of  the  invisible  Church  .  .  .  wait  for  the  full  redemption 
of  their  bodies  .  .  .  till  at  the  last  day  they  be  again 
united  to  their  souls."  "  We  are  to  believe  that  at  the  last 
day  there  shall  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of 
the  just  and  unjust." 

2nd.  To  me  it  appears  that  the  temper  which  secretly  prompts 

this  scheme  is  one  of  unbelief     Overweening 

V^l  1,^'^IV^"]'^   ?"^"    and  egotistical  hopes  of  the  early  evansfeli- 

gested  by  Mistrust.  .  °  -^         ,  ,     r  1   1  •    1 

zmg  01  the   whole  world,  fostered  by  partial 

considerations,  meet  with  disappointment.  Hence  results  a 
feeling  of  skepticism ;  and  they  are  heard  pronouncing  the 
present  agencies  committed  to  the  Church,  as  manifestly  inade- 
quate. But  the  temper  which  Christ  enjoins  on  us  is  one  of 
humble,  faithful,  believing  diligence  in  the  use  of  those  agen- 
cies, relying  on  His  faithfulness  and  power  to  make  them  do 
their  glorious  work.  He  commands  us  also  to  remember  how 
much  they  have  already  accomplished,  when  energized  by  His 
grace,  and  to  take  courage.  The  tendencies  of  the  pre-Advent 
scheme  are  unwholesome,  though  it  has  been  held  by  some 
spiritually  minded  men. 

Its  advocates  boast  that  they  alone  interpret  the  symbols  of 
prophecy  faithfully.  But  when  we  examine, 
moT-e  Faithful'''  ""^  ^^^  ^^d  that  they  make  no  nearer  approach 
to  an  exact  system  of  exposition ;  and  that 
they  can  take  as  wild  figurative  licenses  when  it  suits  their  pur- 
poses, as  any  others.  The  new  interpretations  are  usually  but 
violations  of  the  familiar  and  well-established  canon,  that  the 
prophets  represent  the  evangelical  blessings  under  the  tropes  of 
the  Jewish  usages  known  to  themselves. 

3d.  The  pre-Advent  scheme  disparages  the  present,  the  dis- 
pensation of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  means  committed  to  the 
Church  for  the  conversion  of  sinners.  It  thus  tends  to  dis- 
courage faith  and  missionary  effort.  Whereas  Christ  represents 
the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  this  His  dispensation,  as 
so  desirable,  that  it  was  expedient  for  Him  to  go  away  that  the 
Paraclete  might  come.     John  xvi  :  7.      Pre-Adventism   repre- 


840  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

sents  it  as  so  undesirable  that  every  saint  ought  to  pray  for  its 
immediate  abrogation.  IncreduHty  as  to  the  conversion  of  the 
world  by  the  "  means  of  grace,"  is  hotly,  and  even  scornfully, 
inferred  from  visible  results  and  experiences,  in  a  temper  which 
we  confess  appears  to  us  the  same  with  that  of  unbelievers  in  2 
Peter  iii:4:  "Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming?"  &c. 
They  seem  to  us  to  "judge  the  Lord  by  feeble  sense,"  instead 
of  "  trusting  Him  for  His  grace."  Thus  it  is  unfavorable  to  a 
faithful  performance  of  ecclesiastical  duties.  If  no  visible 
Church,  however  orthodox,  is  to  be  Christ's  instrument  for  over- 
throwing Satan's  kingdom  here — if  Christ  is  to  sweep  the  best 
of  them  away  as  so  much  rubbish,  along  with  all  "  world-pow- 
ers," at  His  Advent — if  it  is  our  duty  to  expect  and  desire  this 
catastrophe  daily  ;  who  does  not  see  that  we  shall  feel  very 
slight  value  for  ecclesiastical  ties  and  duties  ?  And  should  we 
differ  unpleasantly  from  our  Church  courts,  we  shall  be  tempted 
to  feel  that  it  is  pious  to  spurn  them.  Are  we  not  daily  pray- 
ing for  an  event  which  will  render  them  useless  lumber? 

4th.  Their  scheme  is  obnoxious  to  fatal  Scriptural  objections : 
That  Christ  comes  but  twice,  to  atone  and 
tura°Facfs.^^'  -cup-  ^-q  jyjjgg  •  (Hcb.  ix  :  28).  That  the  heavens 
must  receive  Christ  until  the  times  of  the 
restitution  of  all  things,  (Acts  iii  :  21).  That  the  blessedness 
of  the  saints  is  always  placed  by  Scripture  in  "  those  new 
heavens  and  new  earth,"  which  succeed  the  judgment.  That 
on  this  scheme  the  date  of  the  world's  end  will  be  known  long 
before  it  comes ;  whereas  the  Scripture  represents  it  as  wholly 
unexpected  to  all  when  it  comes  :  That  only  one  resurrection  is 
anywhere  mentioned  in  the  most  exprcbs  didactic  passages ;  so 
that  it  behooves  us  to  explain  the  symbolical  passage  in  Rev. 
XX  :  4  to  6,  in  consistency  with  them  :  That  the  Scriptures  say, 
(e.  g.,  I  Cor.  XV  :  23 ;  2  Thess.  i :  lO;  i  Thess.  iii  :  13),  that  the 
whole  Church  will  be  complete  at  Christ's  next  coming.  And 
that  then  the  sacraments,  and  other  "  means  of  grace,"  will 
cease  finally.  The  opinion  is  also  beset  by  insuperable  difficul- 
ties, such  as  these :  whether  these  resurrected  martyrs  will  die 
again  ;  whether  they  will  enjoy  innocent  corporeal  pleasures ; 
whether  (if  the  affirmative  be  taken)  their  children  will  be  born 
with  original  sin  ;  if  not,  whence  those  apostate  men  are  to 
come,  who  make  the  final  brief  falling  away  just  before  the 
second  resurrection,  &c.  On  all  these  points  the  pre-Adventists 
make  the  wildest  and  most  contradictory  surmises. 

5th.  Thus,  the  scheme  tends  towards  the  Rabbinical  view  of 
the  present  state  of  departed  saints.  All  admit,  that  their  condi- 
tion is  not  equal  in  blessedness  and  glory,  to  that  upon  which 
they  will  enter  after  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  In  the  view 
of  the  pre-Adventist,  it  must  be  also  lower  than  the  millennial 
state ;  because  they  hold  that  Christs  advent,  and  the  "  first 
resurrection,"    is  a  promotion  much   to   be   desired    by   them. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  84 1 

But  pre-Adventists  confess,  with  us,  that  the  final  state,  after 
■**  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb,"  wiU  be  highest  of  all. 
Then  the  present  condition  of  the  sainted  dead  is,  according  to 
this  doctrine,  lower  than  another  mid-way  state,  which  in  turn, 
is  lower  than  the  highest.  May  not  the  present  state  then,  be 
quite  low  indeed  ?  May  it  not  be  almost  as  irksome  as  that  of 
souls  in  the  Rabbinical  Hades  ?  So  some  pre-Adventists  do 
not  stickle  to  intimate. 

6th.  Pre-Adventists  usually  claim  that  their  expectation  of 
the  Lord's  coming  is  peculiarly  promotive  of  spiritual-minded- 
ness,  strong  faith,  and  close  walking  with  God.  A  Christian 
who  had  not  adopted  their  scheme,  is  represented  as  exclaiming, 
when  it  was  unfolded  :  "  If  I  believed  so,  I  must  live  near  my 
Saviour  indeed ! "  If  he  did,  he  exclaimed  foolishly.  For 
first,  did  not  God  give  one  and  the  same  system  of  sanctifica- 
tion  to  us  and  to  primitive  Christians  ?  But  these  could  not 
have  cherished  the  expectation  of  seeing  the  "  personal  advent " 
before  death  ;  for  stubborn  facts  have  proved  that  it  was  not 
less  than  1800  years  distant.  Second,  every  Christian,  even  if 
he  is  a  pre-Adventist,  must  know  that  it  is  far  more  probable 
his  body  will  die  before  the  "advent,"  than  that  he  will  live  to 
see  it.  All  admit  that  in  a  few  years  the  body  must  die.  Then 
the  season  of  repentance  will  be  done,  the  spiritual  state  of  our 
souls  decided  forever,  and  our  spirits  reunited  to  a  glorified 
Redeemer  in  a  better  w^orld  than  this.  Now,  if  there  is  faith, 
these  certainties  contain  more  wholesome  stimulus  for  it,  than 
can  possibly  be  presented  in  the  surmises  of  any  pre-Adventist 
theory.  The  only  reason  the  latter  is  to  any  persons  more  ex- 
citing, is  the  romance  attaching  to  it ;  the  same  reason  which 
enabled  the  false  prophet.  Miller,  to  drive  multitudes  into  wild 
alarm  by  the  dream  of  approaching  judgment,  who  were  un- 
moved by  the  sober  certainty  of  approaching  death.  The  hope 
of  us  common  Christians  is  to  meet  our  glorified  Lord  very  cer- 
tainly and  very  soon  (when  our  bodies  die)  in  the  other  world. 
It  passes  our  wits  to  see  how  a  less  certain  hope  of  meeting 
Him  in  this  world  (a  worse  one)  can  evince  more  "  love  for  His 
appearing." 


LECTURE  LXXI. 

THE  GENERAL  JUDGMENT   AND    ETERNAL   LIFE, 


SYLLABUS. 

See  Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  ^2'     Matt.  ch.  xxv  ;  Jno.  ch.  v;  2  Thess.  i  :  7,  10;  Rev. 
XX  :  12  to  end. 

1.  What  are  God's  purposes  in  holding  a  final  universal  Judgment?     And  what 
the  proofs  that  it  will  occur  ? 

Turrettin,  Loc.  xx,  Qu.  6.  Ridgley,  Qu.  88.  Davies'  Sermon  on  Judgment. 
Hodge  Theol.  Vol.  iii,  p.  844. 

2.  What  will  be  the  time,  place,  and  accessory  circumstances  ? 
Dick,  Lect.  83.     Knapp,  §  155,  and  above  authorities. 

3  Who  will  be  the  Judge  ?     In  what  sense  will  the  saints  be  His  assessors  ? 
Ridgley,  as  above. 

4.  Who  will  be  judged  ?     And  for  what? 
Ridgley  and  Turrettin  as  above. 

5.  By  what  rule  ?     What  the  respective  Sentences  ? 
See  same  authorities. 

6.  What  will  be  the  nature  of  the  reward  of  the  Righteous  ? 

Same  authorides,  especially  Dick,  Lect.  83.  Turrettin,  Qu.  8,  10,  11.  12,  13, 
Knapp,  §  159,  160.  Young's  Last  Day.  Hill,  bk.  v,  ch.  8.  Hodge  Theol, 
Vol.  iii.  p.  85$. 

TT  might  seem  that  the  purposes  of  God's  righteotisness  and 
government   might,  at   first  view,  be  sufficiently  satisfied  by 

a  final  distribution  of  rewards  and  punish- 
eraUud'Tra'ent."      ^""    ments,  to  men,  as  they  successively  passed 

out  of  this  life.  But  His  declarative  glory 
requires  not  only  this,  but  a  more  formal,  forensic  act,  by  which 
His  righteous,  holy,  and  merciful  dealing  shall  be  collectively 
displayed  before  the  Universe.  For  His  creatures,  both  angels 
and  men,  are  finite,  and  would  remain  forever  in  ig'norance  of  a 
great  part  of  His  righteous  dispensation,  unless  they  received 
this  formal  publication.  By  bringing  all  His  subjects  (at  least 
of  this  province  of  His  Universe)  together,  and  displaying  to  all, 
the  conduct  and  doom  of  all,  He  will  silence  every  cavil,  and 
compel  every  one  to  justify  Him  in  all  His  dealings. 

But  more  than  this  :  man  is,  during  all   his   probationary 

state,  a  sensuous  being.  So  that  he  certainly, 
science.'"^"  ^  ^^     '^^'    ^^  "°^  angels,  is  powerfully  actuated  by  many 

motives  arising  out  of  a  judgment,  to  shun 
sin,  and  seek  after  righteousness.  The  strict  account,  the 
prompt  and  irrevocable  sentence  pronounced  upon  it,  the  pub- 
lication of  his  sins,  secret  and  open,  to  all  the  world,  the  acces- 
sories of  grandeur  and  awe  which  will  attend  the  last  award,  all 
appeal  to  his  nature,  as  a  social  and  corporeal  creature,  arous- 
ing conscience,  fear,  hope,  shame  of  exposure,  affection  for 
fellow-men,  and  giving  substance  and  reality  to  the  doctrine  of 
future  rewards,  in  a  way  which  could  not  be  felt,  if  there  were 
no  judgment  day.  But,  as  was  remarked  concerning  the  death 
842 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY,  843 

of  the  saints ;  if  any  benefit  is  to  be  realized  from  the  certain 
prospect  of  an  event,  the  event  must  be  certain. 

Several  arguments  have  been  announced  by  theologians  to 
Rational  Arguments    show  that  reason  might  anticipate  a  general 
Invalid,  Though Piob-   judgment,    (a).   From  the  necessity  of  some 
^^^^-  means  to  readjust  the  inequalities   between 

men's  fates  in  this  life  and  their  merits,  (b).  From  the  terrors  of 
man's  own  guilty  conscience,  (c).  From  the  pagan  myths  con- 
cerning future  Judges,  Rliavimisia,  Eac7is,  Minos,  Rhadamanthiis. 
But  these  are  rather  evidences  of  future  rewards  and  punish- 
ments, than  of  their  distribution  in  the  particular  forensic  form 
of  a  general  judgm'ent.  Reason  can  offer  no  more  than  a  prob- 
able evidence  of  the  latter ;  and  this  evidence  is  best  seen  from 
the  objects  which  God  secures  by  a  judgment,  when  considered 
in  the  light  of  these  convictions.  So  far  as  God  Himself  is  con- 
cerned in  the  satisfaction  of  the  attributes  of  justice  in  His  own 
breast,  it  would  be  enough  that  He  should  see  for  Himself,  each 
man's  whole  conduct  and  merits,  and  assign  each  one,  at  such 
time  and  place  as  He  please,  the  adequate  rewards.  But  reason 
and  conscience  make  a  judgment  probable,  because  they  obvi- 
ously indicate  the  above  valuable  ends  to  be  subserved  by  it. 
For  it  enables  God,  not  only  to  right  all  the  inequalities  of  His 
temporal  providence,  and  to  sanction  the  verdicts  of  man's  con- 
science, but  to  show  all  this  to  His  kingdom,  to  the  glory  of 
His  grace  and  holiness;  to  unmask  secret  sin  when  He  punishes 
it ;  to  stop  the  mouths  of  the  accusers  of  His  people  while  He 
reveals  and  rewards  their  secret  graces  and  virtues  ;  and  to 
apply  to  the  soul,  while  on  earth,  the  most  pungent  stiinidi  to 
obedience. 

But  this  is  more  clearly  the  doctrine  of  Revelation.  It 
would  indeed  be  inaccurate  to  apply  to  a 
Revelation  Teaches  it.  g^j^g^al  judgment  every  thing  which  is  said 
in  the  Bible  about  God's  judgment :  as  is  done  to  too  great  an 
extent  by  some  writers.  For  this  word  is  sometimes  used  for 
God's  government  in  general  (John  v  :  22)  for  a  command  or 
precept,  (Ps.  xix  :  9  ;)  sometimes  for  God's  chastisements  (i 
Pet.  iv  :  17,)  sometimes  for  His  vengeance,  (Ps.  cxlix  :  9  ;)  some- 
times for  the  attribute  of  righteousness,  (Ps.  Ixxii  :  2,  or  Ixxxix : 
14  ;)  sometimes  for  a  special  sentence  pronounced.  But  the 
following  passages  may  be  said  to  have  more  or  less  of  a  proper 
application  to  the  general  judgment,  and  from  them  it  will  be 
learned  that  this  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  from  the 
earliest  ages,  viz;  Jude  14  ;  Eccles.  xii  :  14  ;  Ps.  1  ;  3-6,  21  ; 
possibly  Ps.  xcvi  :  13  ;  Dan.  vii  :  10  ;  Matt,  xii  :  36  ;  xiii  :  41  ; 
xvi  :  27  ;  and  most  notably  xxv  :  31-46  ;  Acts  xvii  :  31  ;  2 
Cor.  v  :  10  ;  2  Thess.  i  :  7-10  ;  2  Tim.  iv  :  i  ;  Rev.  xx  :  12. 
Other  passages  which  will  be  quoted  to  show  who  are  the 
Judge,  and  parties  judged,  and  what  the  subjects  of  judgment, 
also  apply  fairly  to  this  point.    They  need  not  be  anticpiated  here. 


844  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

Some  laxer  theologians,  especially  of  the   German  school, 

have  taught   that  all  these  passages  do  not 

'^^f  //'''sment  not    ^g^ch    a   literal,    universal,    forensic  act,  but 

merely  Metaphorical.  '         i  .    i     -^      i       -n  •      i 

merely  a  state,  to  which  Cjoq  will  successively 
bring  all  His  creatures  according  to  their  respective  merits ;  in 
short  that  the  whole  representation  ,is  merely  figurative  of  cer- 
tain principles  of  retribution.  The  answer  is,  to  point  to  the 
previous  arguments,  which  show  that  not  only  equal  retributions, 
but  a  public  formal  declaration  thereof,  are  called  for  by  the 
purposes  of  God's  government,  and  the  system  of  doctrines  ; 
and  to  show  that  the  strong  terms  of  the  Scriptures  cannot 
be  satisfied  by  such  an  explanation.  There  are  figures  ;  but 
those  figures  must  be  literalized  according  to  fair  exegetical 
laws  ;  and  they  plainly  describe  the  judgment  as  something  that 
precedes  the  execution  of  the  retribution. 

The  time  of  this  great  transaction,  absolutely  speaking,  is, 
and  is  intended  to  be,  utterly  unknown  to  the 
DidAJos°tLl^\ISSe  whole  human  race,  in  order  that  its  uncertain- 
ty may  cause  all  to  fear ;  i  Thess.  v  :  2  ;  2  Pet. 
iii  :  10  ;  Matt,  xxiv  :  36,  &c.  Hence  we  may  see  the  unscriptu- 
ralness  of  those  who  endeavor  to  fix  approximately  a  day,  which 
God  intends  to  conceal,  by  their  interpretations  of  unfulfilled 
prophecy.  If  the  beginning  of  the  millennium  can  be  defi- 
nitely fixed  by  an  event  so  marked  as  the  personal  advent  of 
Christ ;  if  its  continuance  can  be  marked  off  by  one  thousand 
literal,  solar  years  ;  and  if  the  short  apostasy  which  is  to  follow 
is  to  last  only  a  few  years,  then  God's  people  will  foreknow 
pretty  accurately  when  to  expect  the  last  day.  Again  :  the 
Jewish  Christians,  among  many  vague  expectations  concerning 
Christ's  kingdom,  evidently  expected  that  the  final  consum- 
mation would  come  at  the  end  of  one  generation  from  Christ's 
ascension.  This  erroneous  idea  was  a  very  natural  deduction 
from  the  Jewish  belief,  that  their  temple  and  ritual  were  to  sub- 
sist till  the  final  consummation,  when  coupled  with  Christ's 
declaration,  in  Matt,  xxiv  :  that  Jerusalem  should  be  destroyed 
in  the  day  of  some  then  living.  See  this  misconception  be- 
trayed. Matt,  xxiv  :  3  ;  Acts  i  :  7.  So  they  doubtless  misunder- 
stood Matt,  xvi  ;  28.  Now,  it  has  ever  been  a  favorite  charge 
against  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles,  in  the  mouths  of  infidels, 
that  they  evidently  shared  in  this  mistake.  E.  g.  in  James  v  : 
8  ;  2  Peter  iii  :  12  ;  Phil,  iv  :  5,  &c.  But  this  charge  is  founded 
only  in  the  ignorance  of  the  Apostles'  various  meanings  when 
they  speak  of  the  "  coming,"  or  "presence,"  of  Christ.  Often- 
times they  mean  the  believer's  death  ;  for  that  is  practically  His 
coming  and  the  end  of  the  world,  to  that  believer ;  and  the 
space  between  that  and  the  general  judgment  is  to  him  no 
space  practically  ;  because  nothing  can  be  done  in  it  to  redeem 
the  soul.  Their  misunderstanding  is  clearly  enough  evinced  by 
Paul  in  2  Thess.  ii  :  1-3,  &c.,  Avith  i  Thess.  iv  :  15,  17.     For  the 


OF  LECTURES'  IN  THEOLOGY.  845 

latter  place  contains  language  than  which  none  would  be  more 
liable  to  these  skeptical  perversions.  Yet  in  the  former  citation 
we  see  Paul  explicitly  correcting  the  mistake. 

But  while,  absolutely,  the  time  of  the  judgment  is  unknown, 
It  Follows    Resurrec-  relatively   it  is  distinctly  fixed.     It  will  be 
tion.    How   Long  Pro-  immediately  after  the   general  resurrection, 
^'"^'^^^'^-  and  just  coincident  with,  or  just  after  the 

final  destruction  of  the  globe  by  fire.  The  good  and  evil  men 
do,  live  after  them.  Hence,  that  measure  of  merit  and  demerit, 
which  is  taken  from  consequences,  is  not  completely  visible  to 
creatures  until  time  is  completed.  St.  Paul  is  still  doing  good : 
Simon  Magus  is  still  doing  mischief  *'  They  being  dead,  yet 
speak."  We  thus  perceive  a  reason  why  God's  declarative 
judgment  of  men,  meant  as  it  is  for  the  instruction  of  the  crea- 
tures and  practical  vindication  of  His  justice,  should  be  postponed 
until  men's  conduct  has  borne  its  full  earthly  fruits.  Hence 
it  is  that  the  great  assize  is  placed  immediately  after  the  resur- 
rection. See  Rev.  xx  :  lO  to  end  ;  2  Thess.  i  :  7  to  10,  and 
similar  passages.  The  duration  of  the  judgment  is  commonly 
called  a  day  ;  Act  xvii  :  31.  Some,  conceiving  that  the  work 
of  the  judgment  will  include  the  intelligible  revealing  of  the 
whole  secret  life  of  every  creature,  to  every  other  creature,  sup- 
pose that  the  period  will  vastly  exceed  one  solar  day  in  length, 
stretching  possibly  to  thousands  of  years.  If  all  this  is  to  be 
done,  they  may  well  suppose  the  time  will  be  long.  But  to  me, 
it  seems  far  from  certain  that  this  universal  revealing  of  every 
creature  to  every  other,  is  either  possible  or  necessary.  Can  any 
but  an  infinite  mind  comprehend  all  this  immense  number  of 
particulars  ?  Is  it  necessary,  in  order  that  any  one  creature 
may  have  all  defective  and  erroneous  ideas  about  God's  govern- 
ment corrected,  which  he  has  contracted  in  this  life,  to  be  intro- 
duced to  the  knowledge  of  parts  of  His  dealings  utterly  unknown 
to,  and  unconnected  with  him  ?  Hence  I  would  say,  that  of 
the  actual  duration  of  the  august  scene,  we  know  nothing.  But 
we  are  told  that  its  accessories  will  be  vast  and  majestic.  The 
terrors  of  the  resurrection  will  have  just  occurred,  the  earth 
will  be  just  consigned  to  destruction.  Jesus  Christ  will  appear 
on  the  scene  with  ineffable  pomp,  attended  with  all  the  redeemed 
and  the  angels  ;  Acts  i  :  ii.  The  souls  of  the  blessed  will  be 
reunited  to  their  bodies,  and  then  they  will  be  assorted  out  from 
the  risen  crowd  of  humanity,  and  their  acquittal  and  glorification 
declared  to  the  whole  assemblage  ;  while  the  unbelievers  will 
receive  their  sentence  of  eternal  condemnation. 

The  place  of  this   transaction  has  also  been  subject  of  in- 
quiry.    To  me  it  appears  indubitable  that  it 
will  occupy  a  place  in  the  literal  sense  of  the 
word.     To  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  disembodied  souls  are 
not  ubiquitous,  the  actors   in  this  transaction  will  be,  many  of 
them,  clothed  with  literal  bodies,  which,  although  glorified  or 


846  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

damned,  will  occupy  space  just  as  really  as  here  on  earth.  All 
that  Scripture  says  about  the  place  is,  i  Thess.  iv  :  17,  that  we 
"  shall  be  caught  up  .  .  .  into  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air."  Some,  as  Davies,  have  supposed  that  the  upper 
regions  of  our  atmosphere  will  be  the  place  where  the  vast 
assembly  will  be  held  ;  while  they  will  behold  the  world  beneath 
them,  either  just  before,  or  during  the  grand  assize,  wrapped  in 
the  universal  fires.  But  see  2  Peter  iii  :  10.  'It  would  seem 
most  obvious  from  our  notions  of  combustion,  as  well  as  from 
this  passage,  that  however  that  conflagration  may  be  produced, 
our  atmosphere,  the  great  supporter  of  combustion,  will  be  in- 
volved in  it.  This  may  serve  as  a  specimen  of  the  ill-success 
which  usually  meets  us  when  we  attempt  to  be  "  wise  above 
that  which  is  written"  on  these  high  subjects.  The  place  is  not 
revealed  to,  and  cannot  be  surmised  by  us. 

The   Judge   will  unquestionably   be    Jesus   Christ,   in    His 

mediatorial  person.     See   Matt,  xxv  :  ^i,  ^2; 
3.  The Judo-e  Christ.  ••■       .0        t    1  ^-        a     ..  .^  •• 

■yy^  9     ■'     °  xxvni  :  lb  ;    John  v  :  27  ;    Acts  x  :  42  :  xvu  : 

3 1  ;  Rom.  xiv  :  10 ;  Phil,  ii :  10 ;  2  Tim.  iv  :  i . 
These  passages  are  indisputable.  Nor  have  the  Scriptures  left 
us  ignorant  entirely,  of  the  grounds  of  this  arrangement.  The 
honor  and  prerogative  of  judging  "the  quick  and  the  dead,"  is 
plainly  declared,  in  Phil,  ii  :g,  10,  to  be  a  part  of  Christ's  medi- 
atorial exaltation,  and  a  just  consequence  of  His  humiliation. 
It  was  right  that  when  the  Lord  of  all  condescended,  in  His 
unspeakable  mercy,  to  assume  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  en- 
dure the  extremest  indignities  of  His  enemies,  He  should  enjoy 
this  highest  triumph  over  them,  in  the  very  form  and  nature  of 
His  humiliation.  Indeed,  in  this  aspect,  His  judging  the  world 
is  but  the  crowning  honor  of  His  kingship  ;  so  that  whatever 
views  explain  His  kingly  office,  explain  this  function  of  it.  But 
more  than  this :  His  saints  have  an  interest  in  it.  Then  only  is 
their  redemption  completed,  justification  pronounced  finally, 
and  the  last  consequences  of  sin  obliterated.  By  the  same 
reason  that  it  was  necessary  they  should  have  a  "  merciful  and 
faithful  High  Priest,"  in  all  the  previous  exigencies  of  their 
redemption,  it  is  desirable  that  they  should  have  their  Mediator 
for  their  judge  in  this  last  crisis.  Otherwise  they  would  sink  in 
despair  before  the  terrible  bar.  They  would  be  unable  to  an- 
swer a  word  to  the  accuser  of  the  brethren,  or  to  present  any 
excuse  for  their  sins.  But  when  they  see  their  Almighty 
Friend  in  the  judgment  seat,  their  souls  are  re-assured.  This 
may  be  the  meaning  of  the  words  ''because  He  is  the  Son  of 
man."     John  v  :  27. 

There  seems  to  be  a  sense,  in  which  the  saints  will  sit  and 
^,     ,.  .       .  judge  with  Christ.      Ps.   cxlix  :  6-q;-  i    Cor. 

Ihe  saints  Assess-        •    °  r>  itt 

ors.  VI  :  2,  3  ;   Kev.   xx  :  4.       We  suppose   no  one 

will    understand    from    these    passages,    that 

Christians  can,  or  will,  exercise  those  incommunicable  functions 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  847 

of  searching  hearts,  apportioning  infinite  penalties  to  infinite 
demerits,  and  executing  the  sentence  with  almighty  power. 
There  are  two  lower  meanings  in  which  it  may  be  said  that 
saints  shall  judge  sinners.  Thus,  in  Mate,  xii  :  41,  42,  the  con- 
trast of  Nineveh's  penitence  is  a  sort  of  practical  rebuke  and 
condemnation  to  those  who  persist  in  the  opposite  conduct.  But 
this  does  not  express  the  whole  truth.  The  saints  are  adopted 
sons  of  God ;  "  heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ ;  if  so 
be  we  suffer  with  Him,  that  we  may  be  also  glorified  together." 
Rom.  viii  :  17.  They  also  are  "kings  and  priests  unto  God." 
In  this  sense,  they  share,  by  a  sort  of  reflected  dignity,  the  ex- 
altation of  their  elder  brother  ;  and  in  this,  the  culminating 
point  of  His  mediatorial  royalty,  they  are  graciously  exalted  to 
share  with  Him,  according  to  their  lower  measure.  Having  had 
their  own  acquittal  and  adoption  first  declared,  they  are  placed 
in  the  post  of  honour,  represented  as  Christ's  right  hand,  and 
there  concur  as  assessors  with  Christ,  in  the  remainder  of  the 
transaction. 

The  persons  to  be  judged  will  embrace  all  wicked  angels 
and  all  the  race  of  man.  The  evidence  of 
Judged  ?  °  ^  ^  ^^^^  former  part  of  this  proposition  is  explicit. 
See  Matt,  viii  :  29;  i  Cor.  vi :  3  ;  2  Pet.  ii  :4; 
Jude  6.  And  that  every  individual  of  the  human  race  will  be 
present  is  evident  from  Eccles.  xii:  14;  Ps.  1:4;  2  Cor.  v  :  10; 
Rom.  xiv:iO;   Matt,  xii :  36,  37  ;  xxv:32;   Rev.  xx:i2. 

Some  have  endeavored  to  limit  this  judgment,  (as  the  Pel- 
agians), to  those  men  alone  who  have  enjoyed  gospel  privileges. 
But  if  there  are  any  principles  in  God's  government,  calling  for 
a  general  judgment  of  those  subject  to  it,  and  if  pagans  are 
subject  to  it,  then  they  also  should  be  judged.  And  if  the  pas- 
sages above  cited  do  not  assert  an  actual  universality  of  the 
judgment,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  any  language  could.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  men  will  be  judged,  and  doubtless,  the  wicked 
angels  likewise,  for  all  their  thoughts,  words  and  deeds.  This 
is  obviously  just,  and  is  called  for  by  the  purposes  of  a  judgment. 
For  if  there  was  any  class  of  moral  acts  which  had  not  this 
prospect  of  a  judgment  awaiting  them,  men  would  think  they 
could  indulge  in  these  with  impunity.  Upon  the  question 
whether  the  sins  of  the  righteous,  already  pardoned  in  Christ, 
will  receive  publicity  in  that  day,  Dick  states  the  respective  argu- 
ments. To  me  it  appears  that  we  must  admit  they  will  be,  un- 
less we  can  prove  that  the  places  where  men  are  warned  that 
they  must  be  judged  "for  every  idle  word,"  for  "  every  secret 
thing,"  were  not  addressed  to  Christians  at  all,  but  only  to  sin- 
ners. The  disposition  to  deny  that  pardoned  sins  will  be  pub- 
lished in  the  day  of  judgment,  doubtless  arises  from  the  feeling 
that  it  would  produce  a  shame  and  compunction  incompatible 
with  the  blessedness  of  their  state.  But  will  the  saints  not  pub- 
lish their  sins  themselves,  in  their  confessions  ?     And  is  it  not 


848  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  sweetest  type  of  spiritual  joy,   that  which  proceeds  from 
contrition  for  sin  ? 

It  may  be  further  noticed,  that  the  Scriptures  are  utterly 
silent  as  to  the  judging  of  the  holy  angels. 
beTudge^^?''^  "^""^^^  It  is  therefore  our  duty  to  refrain  from  assert- 
ing anything  about  it.  Some  have  surmised 
that  though  they  are  not  mentioned,  they  will  be  judged, 
because  they  have  some  connection  through  their  ministry  of 
love,  with  the  men  who  will  be  judged.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  maybe  remarked,  there  is  significance  in  the  fact,  that  all  the 
creatures  spoken  of  as  standing  at  Christ's  judgment  are  sin- 
ful ones.  The  holy  angels  never  sinne'd  ;  they  have  been  long  ago 
justified  through  a  method  totally  inapplicable  to  fallen  beings, 
the  Covenant  of  Works,  and  this  may  constitute  a  valid  reason 
why  they  should  not  bear  a  share  in  this  judgment  of  sinning 
beings,  who  are  either  justified  by  free  grace  or  condemned. 

So  far  as  the  judgment  is  a  display  of  God's  attributes  to 
the  creature,  it  is  doubtless  to  those  creatures 
e    pecta  ors.  ^^\io  are  conversant  with  this  scene  of  earthly 

struggle.  The  holy  angels  are  concerned  in  it  as  interested  and 
loving  spectators  ;  the  wicked  angels  as  causes  and  promoters 
of  all  the  mischief;  man,  as  the  victim  and  agent  of  earthly  sin. 
If  God  has  other  orders  of  intelligent  creatures,  connected 
with  the  countless  worlds  of  which  astronomy  professes  to  in- 
form us,  who  are  not  included  in  these  three  classes ;  it  is  not 
necessary  to  supppose  that  they  will  share  in  this  scene,  because 
we  have  no  evidence  that  they  are  cognizant  of  the  sins  and 
grace  which  lead  to  it.     But  here  all  is  only  dim  surmise. 

The  rule  by  which  sinners  and  saints  will  be  judged,  will  be 
the  will  of  God  made  known  to  them.     The 
5.  The  Rule.  Gentiles  will   be  judged  by  that  natural   law 

written  on  their  hearts  ;  the  Jews  of  the  Old  Testament  by  that, 
and  the  Old  Testament  alone  ;  but  those  who  have  enjoyed  the 
Gospel  in  addition  to  the  others,  shall  be  judged  by  all  three. 
(See  Rom.  ii :  12  ;  Jno.  xii :  48  ;  Luke  xii :  47  ;  Jno.  xv  :  22).  God 
will  judge  justly,  and  render  to  every  man  his  due.  In  Dan. 
vii :  10 ;  Rev,  xx  :  12;  the  same  phrase  is  employed:  "The 
judgment  was  set,  and  the  books  opened."  Perhaps  the  mode 
of  understanding  this,  most  accordant  with  the  mind  of  the 
Spirit,  would  be  to  attempt  to  apply  the  phrase,  book,  to  noth- 
ing in  particular,  in  the  judgments  of  man;  but  to  regard  it  as  a 
mere  carrying  out  of  the  august  figure;  a  grand  judicial  trial. 
But  if  a  more  particular  explanation  must  be  had,  we  may  per- 
haps concur  in  the  belief,  that  one  of  these  books  is  the  Word 
of  God,  which  is  the  statute-book,  under  which  the  cases  must 
be  decided  ;  another,  the  book  of  God's  remembrance,  from 
which  the  evidence  of  conduct  will  be  read :  and  still  another, 
the  book  of  God's  decrees,  where  the  names  of  men  were  re- 
corded before  the  foundation  of  the  world. 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  849 

In  Matt.  XXV,  the  reprobate  are  condemned  because  they 
Relation  of  Works    have  not  performed  to  God's  suffering  chil- 
of  Charity   to   Judg-    dren  acts  of  beneficence  and  charity,  and  the 
^^'^"'"  righteous   acquitted   because    they   have.     It 

may  be  briefly  remarked  here,  that  while  sinners  will  be  con- 
demned strictly  on  the  merit  of  their  own  conduct,  saints  will 
be  acquitted  solely  on  the  merit  of  Christ.  They  are  rewarded 
according  to,  not  because  of  the  deeds  done  in  the  flesh.  The 
evidence  of  this  may  be  seen,  where  we  refuted  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  works,  and  these  very  passsges  were  brought 
into  review.  But  the  purpose  of  God  m  the  judgment  is  to 
evince  the  holiness,  justice,  love,  and  mercy  of  His  dealings  to 
all  His  subjects.  But  as  they  cannot  read  the  secret  faith,  love 
and  penitence  of  the  heart,  the  sentence  must  be  regulated 
according  to  some  external  and  visible  conduct,  which  is  cogniz- 
able by  creatures,  and  is  a  proper  test  of  regenerate  character. 
It  is  very  noticeable  that  not  all  righteous  conduct,  but  only 
one  kind,  is  mentioned  as  the  test ;  these  works  of  charity. 
And  this  is  most  appropriate,  not  only  because  they  are  accur- 
ate tests  of  true  holiness,  but  because  it  was  most  proper  that 
in  a  judgment  where  the  accquittal  can  in  no  case  occur,  ex- 
cept through  divine  grace  and  pardon,  a  disposition  to  mercy 
should  be  required  of  those  who  hope  for  acceptance.  (See 
Jas.  ii  :  13  ;  Matt,  x  :  12,  xviii  :  28,  &c. 

The  sentence  of  the  righteous  is  everlasting  blessedness  ; 
that  of  the  wicked,  everlasting  misery.  The 
6.  The  Sentences.  discussion  of  the  latter  must  be  the  subject 
of  another  lecture.  The  nature  of  eternal  life  I  shall  now  en- 
deavor to  state.  Far  be  it  from  us,  to  presume  to  be  wise  above 
that  which  is  written  ;  let  us  modestly  collect  those  traits  of  the 
saint's  everlasting  rest,  which  the  Bible,  in  its  great  re  -erve  on 
this  subject,  has  seen  fit  to  reveal. 

The  place  of  this   eternal  life  is  usually  called  heaven.     It 

is    undoubtedly    a    place    proper,    and    not 
The  Place  of  Reward.    ^^^^^^^^^    ^    ^^^^^        p^^.    ^j^^^.^    ^^^    ^^^^   ^^^ 

material  bodies  of  Christ,  and  of  Enoch  and  Elijah,  if  not  of 
others.  There  will  be  a  multitude  of  bodies.  The  finite  glori- 
fied spirits  there  also  have  a  ndz.  It  is  vain  for  us  to  surmise,  in 
what  part  of  the  Universe  Christ's  glorified  humanity  now  holds 
its  court.  The  phrases  "up,"  "above,"  "ascend,"  &c.,  teach 
nothing  ;  for  what  is  above  to  us,  is  beneath  to  our  antipodes, 
in  whose  places  we  shall  be  in  twelve  hours. 

But  it  is  not  place,  but  character,  which  confers  essential 
The  Saints'  Blessed-  happiness.  We  are  taught  indeed  that  occa- 
ness.  (a)  In  Exemp-  sion  for  this  spiritual  blessedness  will  be 
tion.  (b)  In  Holiness,  gecured  to  the  saints  by  their  perfect  exemp- 
tion from  all  natural  evils,  such  as  unsatisfied  wants,  pain,  grief, 
sickness,  violence,  and  death.  (See  Job  iii  :  17  ;  Is.  xxv  :  8  ; 
Rev.  vii  :  16,  17  ;  xxi  :  4.)     But  the  most  important  fact  is,  that 

54* 


850  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  blessedness  of  the  Hfe  everlasting  is  simply  the  perfection  of 
that  state  which  is  begun  here  by  the  new  birth  and  sanctifi- 
cation.  As  saith  M.  Henry,  "  Grace  is  glory  begun,  and  glory 
is  but  grace  consummated."  (See  Jno.  v  :  24  ;  vi  :  47  ;  Gal.  vi  : 
7).  On  entering  heaven,  the  soul  is  made  perfectly  holy  ;  and 
thus  every  root  of  misery  is  removed.  When  we  inquire  for 
the  objective  sources  of  the  saints'  bliss,  we  find  them  subordi- 
nately  in  the  society  of  fellow-saints,  but  chiefly  in  God  Him- 
self, and  especially  in  the  Redeemer.  (Ps.  Ixxiii  :  25  ;  Rev. 
xxi  :  23).  That  the  saints'  happiness  will  be  social,  is  plain 
from  the  Bible  representations  ;  and  I  believe  that  those  who 
have  known  and  loved  each  other  here,  will  recognize  each 
other  there.  (See  i  Thess.  ii  :  19  ;  2  Sam.  xii  :  23).  And  it 
appears  very  unreasonable  that  the  love,  and  other  social  graces 
which  are  there  perfected  in  their  glorified  humanity,  should 
then  have  no 'objects.  But  the  Holy  Trinity  will  ever  be  the 
central  and  chief  object,  from  which  the  believer's  bliss  will  be 
derived. 

This  happiness  will  consist  in  the  satisfaction  of  both  mind 
and  heart.     Curiosity  is  one  of  the  keenest 
Elements  of  this  Hap-  ^^^  ^^^^^  uncloying  sources  of  interest  and 
piness  Intellective.  1111  •      1        -t-i 

pleasure   to   the   healthy  mind.     Then  "we 

shall  know  even  as  we  are  known ;"  and  our  minds  will  find 
perpetual  delight  in  learning  the  things  of  God  and  His  provi- 
dence. Here  will  be  matter  of  study  ample  enough  to  fill 
eternity. 

Again :  To  love  is  to  be   happy :  saith  the  Apostle  John, 

"  He  that  dwelleth  in  love,  dwelleth  in  God, 

and  God  in  him."  Our  terrestrial  objects  of 
affection  have  taught  us,  that  if  the  heart  could  always  be  exer- 
cising its  affection  towards  some  worthy  object,  this  would  con- 
stitute happiness.  But  the  object  being  earthly,  we  are  con- 
stantly liable  to  be  separated  from  it  by  distance,  or  to  have  it 
torn  from  us  by  death,  when  our  affection  becomes  our  torment. 
Or,  being  imperfect,  it  may  wound  us  by  infidelity  or  injustice. 
Or  else,  corporeal  wants  drive  us  from  it  to  labour.  But  now 
let  us  suppose  the  soul,  endowed  with  an  object  of  love  wholly 
worthy  and  suitable,  never  separated  by  distance,  nor  torn 
away  by  death,  incapable  of  infidelity,  or  unkindness  ;  is  it  not 
plain  that  in  the  possession  and  love  of  this  object,  there  would 
be  perpetual  blessedness ;  external  evils  being  fenced  off? 
Such  an  object  is  God,  and  such  is  the  blessedness  of  heaven, 
springing  from  the  perpetual  indulgence  of  a  love  that  never 
cloys,  that  is  never  interrupted,  and  never  wounded,  and  that 
expresses  its  happiness  in  untiring  praises. 

The  answer  to  the  question,  where  shall  be  the  place  of 

the  saints'  final  abode,  is  not  vital.  Where 
theVfnaSry^^^'^  °^   holiness,  rest  and  Christ  are,  is  heaven.     But 

the  doctrine  that  this  earth  is  to  be  recon- 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  85  I 

structed  after  its  purgation  by  fire,  and  is  to  become  the  dwell- 
ing place  of  redeemed  men  and  the  God-Man,  in  their  resur- 
rection bodies,  is  beautifully  illustrative  of  some  other  truths  ; 
and  it  seems  strongly  supported  by  the  Scriptures.  First,  that 
destruction  which  awaits  the  world  by  fire  (2  Peter  iii  :  7  ;  2 
Thess.  i  :  8,)  is  not  to  be  an  annihilation.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  any  atom  of  substance  is  annihilated  ;  and  we  know  that 
combustion  annihilates  no  part  of  the  fuel  we  burn.  Words 
equally  as  strong  (Gen.  vi- :  13  ;  Heb.  ii  :  14  ;  2  Peter  iii  :  6), 
are  used  concerning  the  flood,  and  the  judgment  of  Satan  and 
the  wicked,  where  there  was  no  annihilation.  But  if  the  earth 
is  to  exist  after  the  final  consummation,  for  what  end  will  God 
use  it  ?  Second  :  many  Scriptures  speak  of  this  earth  as  a 
permanent  structure,  and  as  given  to  man  for  his  home.  See 
Ps.  Ixxviii  :  69  ;  xc  :  2  ;  cxv  :  16  ;  xxxvii  :  29  ;  viii  :  5,6;  Matt. 
V  :  5.  The  promise  of  the  last  three  can  scarcely  be  understood 
of  any  other  than  the  renovated  earth,  because,  as  long  as  the 
Church  is  in  its  militant  state,  the  righteous  and  the  meek  are 
forewarned  that  "  in  this  world  they  shall  have  tribulation." 
Third  ;  the  striking  analogy  between  our  bodies'  resurrection, 
and  this  Tiolq-fe'uta'.a  of  our  earth,  gives  probability  to  the  doc- 
trine. Man  was  created  an  incorporate,  but  holy  and  immortal 
creature.  By  his  sin  he  corrupted  his  body  with  death.  Re- 
demption does  not  propose  to  cast  off  this  polluted  body  and 
save  him  as  a  new  species  of  disembodied  spirit:  No,  redemp- 
tion proposes  to  restore  both  parts  of  man's  nature,  spirit  and 
body,  and  in  spite  of  sin  and  Satan,  to  realize  in  eternal  perfec- 
tion God's  original  conception  of  a  holy,  glorious  and  immortal, 
incorporate  creature.  So,  by  analogy,  we  naturally  expect 
that  when  the  earth,  man's  heritage  and  home,  is  cursed  for  his 
sin  and  usurped  by  Satan,  it  is  not  to  be  surrendered  to  the 
usurpation,  but  to  be  redeemed  and  purged  for  its  original 
destination,  the  eternal  home  of  a  glorified  human  race.  This, 
fourth:  agrees  exactly  with  Rom.  viii  :  19  to  23  ;  and  with 
Eph.  i  :  14.  The  material  creation  is  here  represented,  by  a 
vivid  impersonation,  as  interested  in  our  redemption,  and  des- 
tined to  share  it :  and  there  is  no  other  idea  which  answers  so 
well  to  that  of  a  purchased  possession  to  be  redeemed  for  us 
hereafter,  as  this. 

Fifth  :  when  we  pass  to  the  New  Testament  prophecies,  the 
evidence  is  clearer.  Rev.  v  :  10,  the  representatives  of  the  ran- 
somed Church  sing  to  the  Lamb  :  "  Thou  hast  made  us  to  our 
God  kings  and  priests  :  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth  !"  This 
is  a  privilege  which  is  to  follow  their  present  state  of  expectant 
glory.  So  2  Peter  iii  :  13,  tells  us  that  believers  are  entitled  to 
"  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth 
righteousness."  This  promise  is  given  in  connection  with  the 
previous  renovation  of  the  earth  by  fire.  In  Rev.  xxi  :  i,  2,  the 
apostle  sees  "  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  "     .     .     .     "  and 


852  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem,  coming  down  from  God  out  of 
heaven."  In  verse  3d  he  hears  a  great  voice  out  of  heaven, 
saying:  "Behold  the  tabernacle  of  God  is  with  men,  and  He 
will  dwell  with  them."  The  crowning  formula  of  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  then  follows,  showing  that  this  descent  of  God's  taber- 
nacle to  earth  is  the  final  consummation  of  the  redemption  of 
men. 

This  conclusion  gives  us  a  noble  view  of  the  immutability  of 
God's  purpose  of  grace,  and  the  glory  of  His  victory  over  sin 
and  Satan.  This  planet  was  fashioned  to  be  man's  heritage; 
and  a  part  of  it,  at  least,  adorned  with  the  beauties  of  a  para- 
dise, for  his  home.  Satan  sought  to  mar  the  divine  plan,  by 
the  seduction  of  our  first  parents.  For  long  ages  he  has 
seemed  to  triumph,  and  has  filled  His  usurped  dominion  with 
crime  and  misery.  But  his  insolent  invasion  is  not  to  be  des- 
tined to  obstruct  the  Almighty's  beneficent  design.  The  intru- 
sion will  be  in  vain.  God's  purpose  shall  be  executed.  Mes- 
siah will  come  and  re-establish  His  throne  in  the  midst  of  His 
scarred  and  ravaged  realm  ;  He  will  cleanse  away  every  stain 
of  sin  and  death,  and  make  this  earth  bloom  forever  with  more 
than  its  pristine  splendour ;  so  that  the  very  plan  which  was 
initiated  when  "  the  morning  stars  sang  together  and  the  sons  of 
God  shouted  for  joy,"  will  stand  to  everlasting  ages. 


LECTURE  LXXJI. 

NATURE  AND  DURATION  OF  HELL-TORMENTS. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  In  what  will  the  torments  of  the  wicked  consist? 
Turrettin,  Loc.  xx,  Qii.  7.     Ridgley,  Qu.  89.     Knapp,  §  156. 

2.  State  the  various  opinions  which  have  prevailed  as  to  the  duration  of  these 
pains.     Which  now  most  prevalent  among  Universalists  ? 

Turrettin  as  above.     Knapp,  §  156-158.     Debate  between  Rice  and  Pingree. 

3.  State  and  refute  the  usual  objections  against  everlasting  punishments,  from  , 
God's  wisdom,  mercy,  benevolence,  &c. 

Knapp  as  above.     Rice  and  Pingree. 

4.  What  is  the  proper  force  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  original  words  which  state 
the  duration  of  these  torments? 

Knapp,  §  157.     De  Quincey's  Essays. 

5.  Prove  the  everlasUng  duration  of  these  torments  from  the  sinner's  perpetual 
sinfulness ;  from  the  Scriptural  terms,  redemption,  pardon,  salvation,  &c. ;  from  Uni- 
versal relation  in  Providence  between  conduct  and  destiny ;  from  the  existence  of 
condemned  angels;  from  the  Resurrection;  from  temporal  judgments  of  God  on  the 
wicked,  as  Sodom,  &c. ;  from  the  justice  of  God  and  the  unequal  distribution  of 
rewards  here. 

Same  authorities. 

npHE  just  reward  of  ill-desert  is  suffering.      The  Judgment 

results  in  a  curse  upon  the  impenitent,  which  dooms  them, 

as   none  doubt,    to   some   form  of   suffering. 

I.  Natural  Penalues.    Theologians  divide  the  pains  which  are  thus 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY,  853 

adjudged  to  the  condemned,  into  natural,  and  positive.  The 
former  are  those  which  proceed  from  the  natural  working  of 
their  own  evil  principles,  of  themselves,  and  according  to  nat- 
ural law ;  such  pains  as  are  foreshadowed  in  Is.  iii  :  1 1  ;  Gal. 
vi  :  8  ;  Jas.  i  :  I5'  These  natural  penalties  consist  of  the  loss 
or  privation  of  eternal  happiness,  which  only  faith,  repentance, 
and  holiness  can  procure  ;  of  the  remorse,  self-accusation,  and 
despair,  which  the  soul  will  inflict  on  itself  for  its  own  folly  and 
sin ;  of  all  the  disorders,  inward  and  social,  of  inordinate  and 
malignant  emotions ;  and  as  is  most  probable,  at  least,  of  the 
stings  of  carnal,  sensual,  and  sinful  desires  deprived  of  all  their 
earthly  pabulum.  As  to  this  last,  it  appears  most  consistent  to 
limit  what  is  said,  (i  Cor.  xv  :  45 — end)  of  the  spirituality  and 
blessedness  of  the  resurrection  body,  to  the  saints.  The  rep- 
robate will  rise  again;  but  as  they  never  were  savingly  united 
to  Christ,  they  will  never  "  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly  "Adam. 
Hence,  we  naturally  and  reasonably  anticipate,  that  their  bod- 
ies, while  immortal,  will  not  share  the  glory  and  purification  of 
the  bodies  of  the  Redeemed,  but  will  still  be  animal  bodies, 
having  the  appetites  and  wants  of  such.  But  earthly  supplies 
therefor  will  be  forever  lacking.  Hence,  they  will  be  a  prey  to 
perpetual  cravings  unsatisfied. 

The  positive  penalties  of  sin  will  be  such  as  God  will  Him- 
self add,  by  new  dispensations  of  His  power, 
Positive  Penalties.         t.^     •    a-    i.  ~    •   i  tjt-  •  --pi- 

to    mHict   anguish    on     His    enemies.        ihe 

Scriptures  always  represent  Him  as  arising  to  avenge  Himself, 
as  "pouring  out  His  wrath"  upon  His  enemies;  and  in  such 
like,  and  a  multitude  of  other  expressions,  whatever  may  be 
their  figurative  character,  we  cannot  fail  to  see  this  truth,  that 
God  puts  forth  new  and  direct  power,  to  inflict  pain.  The  stu- 
pidity and  obstinacy  of  many  sinners,  obviously,  would  be 
restrained  by  nothing  less  than  the  fear  of  these  positive  penal- 
ties. The  mere  natural  penalties  would  appear  to  them  wholly 
illusory,  or  trivial.  Indeed,  most  sinners  are  so  well  pleased 
with  their  carnal  affections,  that  they  would  rather  declare 
themselves  glad  to  accept,  and  even  cherish,  their  merely  nat- 
ural fruits. 

These   positive  penalties   undoubtedly  will  include,  when 

-TT-,,   rr.,        » rr,.      ^hc  body  is  raised,  some  corporeal  pains,  and 
Will    They    Afflict  1  ^  ■  ^    \  ■    a      •      K^  ^  u 

theBodv!  perhaps,  consist    chiefly  in  them;  else,  why 

need  the  body  be  raised?  And  there  is  too 
obvious  a  propriety  in  God's  punishing  sinners  through  those 
members  which  they  have  perverted  into  "  members  of  unright- 
eousness," for  us  to  imagine  for  a  moment,  that  He  will  omit  it. 
Once  more ;  the  imagery  by  which  the  punishments  of  the 
wicked  are  represented,  however  interpreted,  is  so  uniform,  as 
to  make  it  impossible  to  suppose  the  bodies  of  the  wicked  are 
exempted.  But  whether  their  bodies  will  be  burned  with  lit- 
■eral  fire  and  sulphur,  does  not  appear  so  certain.     In  Matt,  xxv, 


854  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

the  fire  into  which  they  depart  is  said  to  have  been  pre- 
pared from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  for  the  Devil  and 
his  angels.  They  are,  and  will  always  remain,  incorporeal 
beings ;  and  it  does  not  seem  probable  that  literal  fire  is  the 
instrument  which  God  has  devised  expressly  for  their  torment. 
Some  weight  may  also  be  given  to  this  thought  ;  that  other  ad- 
juncts, as  the  darkness,  the  gnawing  worm,  the  brimstone,  the 
smoke,  &c.,  seem  to  be  images  adopted  from  human  tortures 
and  earthly  scenes  of  anguish.  Hence  the  conclusion  to 
which  Turrettin  comes ;  that  this  is  all  imagery.  But,  however 
that  may  be,  the  images  must  be  interpreted  according  to  plain 
rules  of  right  rhetoric.  Interpret  it  as  we  may,  we  cannot  get 
anything  less  from  it  than  this  :  that  sin  will  be  punished  with 
extreme  and  terrible  bodily  torments,  as  well  as  with  natural 
pains. 

Those  who   deny  the  eternity  of  future  punishments   may 
^,      1    r>    ■  ,      be    divided   into   three    classes.        First   are 

2.    Eternal     Punish-  ,  , 

ments  denied,  i.  By  those  who  resolve  the  punishment  oi  the 
Annihilationists.  2.  wicked  into  annihilation.  They  believe  accord- 
?e?sSSs.°"'''''  ^'^"^  ingly-  that  only  the  redeemed  enjoy  a  resur- 
rection. Second  are  the  ancient  and  modern 
Restorationists,  who  hold  to  future  punishments,  longer  or 
shorter,  according  to  men's  guilt ;  but  who  suppose  that  each 
man's  repentance  will  be  accepted  after  his  penal  debt  is  paid  ; 
so  that  at  length,  perhaps  after  a  long  interval,  all  will  be  saved. 
It  is  said  that  the  Originists  believed  that  Satan  and  his  angels 
would  also  be  at  last  saved.  The  third  opinion  is  that  which  is 
now  widely  prevalent  among  modern  Universalists.  This  sup- 
poses, that  the  external  and  internal  sufferings  which  each  soul 
experiences  during  this  life,  and  in  avticido  mortis,  will  satisfy 
all  the  essential  demands  of  the  divine  justice  against  its  sins  : 
and  that  there  will,  accordingly,  be  no  future  punishments. 
At  death,  they  suppose,  those  not  already  penitent  and  holy, 
will  be  summarily  sanctified  by  God,  in  His  universal  mercy 
through  Christ,  and  at  once  received  into  heaven  forever.  This 
scheme  is  the  baldest  and  most  extreme  of  all  the  forms  of 
Universalism,  and  stands  in  most  complete  opposition  to  Scrip- 
ture.    My  arguments  will  therefore  have  a  special  reference  to  it. 

To  clear  the  way,  the  Annihilationist  may  be  easily  refuted, 
by  all  those  passages  which  speak  of  future 
First  Class  Refuted,  punishment,  even  though  we  grant  it  not  eter- 
nal. Such  are  Mark  ix  :  44,  46  ;  Matt,  xxv,  &c.  The  resur- 
rection extends  to  the  wicked,  as  well  as  the  righteous  (Dan. 
xii  :  2;  John  v  :  28,  29).  Nor  does  the  quibble  avail,  that  the 
phrase,  "  everlasting  destruction,"  or  such-like,  implies  annihila- 
tion. If  this  consisted  in  reducing  the  sinner  forever  to  noth- 
ing, it  would  be  instant  destruction,  not  everlasting.  How  can 
punishment  continue,  when  the  subject  of  it  has  ceased  to  exist? 

But  it  may  be  well  to  clear  away  obstructions,  by  refuting 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  855 

3.  God's  Love  Con-  the  general  grounds  on  which  the  eternity  of 
sists  With  Eternal  future  punishments  is  denied.  The  most 
Punishments.  common  of  these  is  that   construction  of  the 

text,  "  God  is  Love,"  which  makes  Him  pure  benevolence, 
denying  to  Him  all  other  moral  attributes,  and  resolving  them 
into  phases  of  benevolence.  But  we  reply  ;  other  texts  say, 
"  God  is  Light ;  "  "  Our  God  is  a  consuming  Fire."  Is  He  noth- 
ing but  pure  intelligence  ?  Is  He  nothing  but  punitive  justice? 
We  see  the  absurd  contradictions  into  which  such  a  mode  of 
interpretation  would  lead  us.  Infinite  benevolence,  intelligence, 
justice,  and  truth  are  co-ordinate  and  consistent  attributes,  act- 
ing harmoniously.  That  God  is  not  benevolent  in  such  a  sense 
as  to  exclude  punitive  justice,  is  proved  thus  :  "It  is  a  fearful 
thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  Living  God  "  (Heb.  x  :  31.  See 
also,  2  Cor.  v  :  ii ;  Ps.  Ixvi  :  5.  Again;  God  is  not  too  benev- 
olent to  punish  devils,  once  His  holy  children,  eternally  (See 
Rev.  XX  :  10).  Nor  can  this  ruinous  fact  be  evaded  by  denying 
the  personality  of  the  devils ;  the  usual  resort  of  the  Univer- 
salists.  The  marks  of  the  real  personality  of  devils  are  as  clear 
as  for  Judas  Iscariot's. 

It  is  equally  vain  to  appeal  to  the  paternal  benevolence  of 

a  father,  claiming  that  God  is  more  tender, 
ure^d°by"SIn.^'  ^'''"    ^^^   ^^  ^^k   whether    any   earthly  parent  is 

capable  of  tormenting  his  own  child,  however 
erring,  with  endless  fire.  The  answer  is  in  such  passages  as  Ps. 
1:21.  "  Thou  thoughtest  that  I  was  altogether  such  an  one  as 
thyself,  but  I  will  rebuke  thee,"  (Is.  Iv  :  8,)  and  by  the  stubborn 
fact,  that  this  "  God  of  Love  "  does  punish  a  sinful  world,  under 
our  eyes,  with  continual  woes,  many  of  them  gigantic.  How 
are  these  dealings  to  be  reconciled  with  God's  benevolence  ? 
By  the  sufferer's  guilt.  Then,  if  the  guilt  of  any  is  endless,  the 
benevolence  of  God  may  permit  them  to  suffer  endlessly.  Even 
if  we  accept  the  erroneous  parallel  to  a  human  parent  as  exact, 
we  may  ask  :  Would  a  benevolent,  wise,  and  just  parent  so 
spare  an  incorrigibly  wicked  son,  as  to  sacrifice  the  order  of  his 
house,  and  the  rights  of  the  good  children  to  his  impunity  ? 
This  argument  is  sometimes  put  in  this  form  :  "  We  are  com- 
manded to  be  like  God.  We  are  also  commanded  to  forgive 
and  love  our  enemies.  But  if  we  were  like  the  Calvinists'  God, 
we  must  hate  and  damn  our  enemies."  The  replies  are,  that 
God  is  also  a  magistrate ;  and  that  human  magistrates  are 
strictly  required  to  condemn  the  wicked  ;  that  we  are  under  no 
circumstances  required  to  pardon  and  love  enemies,  at  the 
expense  of  justice  and  truth;  that  we  are  only  required  to 
restore  the  injurious  enemy  to  our  confidence  and  esteem,  when 
he  repents  ;  the  one  great  reason  why  we  are  enjoined  not  to 
revenge  ourselves,  is  that  "  vengeance  is  God's  ;  He  will  repay  ;" 
and  that  God  does  exhibit  an  infinite  forbearance  towards  His 
enemies,  by  giving  His  own   Son  to   die  for  their  reconciliation 


856  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

on  the  terms  of  faith  and  repentance  ;  the  only  terms  consistent 
with  His  perfections. 

The  attempt  to   argue,  that    God's    wisdom  would  forbid 
God's  Wisdom  Con-    Him   to    create    immortal   beings,   and    then 
sists  with  Eternal  Pun-    permit  them  to  forfeit  the  ends  of  their  exist- 
ishments.  ence,  is  exceedingly  weak  and  presumptuous. 

Before  the  argument  can  apply,  it  must  be  determined  what  is 
God's  secret  purpose  as  to  the  ultimate  end  of  their  existence. 
He  must  suppose  himself  omniscient,  who  imagines  himself 
competent  to  decide. 

One  would  think  that  the  declarations  of  the  Scriptures 
about  eternal  punishments  were  clear  enough 
Cotsiderld."'"^  '^'™''  to  decide  the  debate.  But  you  are  aware 
that  the  words  used  in  the  Scriptures  for 
everlasting,  eternal,  &c.,  are  said  to  mean  also  an  "  age,"  a 
"  dispensation,"  a  finite  duration  ;  and  that  we  hear  of  the  ever- 
lasting hills,  and  the  covenant  with  David's  house  as  eternal  as 
the  sun  ;  whereas  we  are  told  elsewhere,  that  the  hills  shall 
melt,  and  the  sun  be  darkened,  as  David's  dynasty  has  perished. 

But  these  words  are  as  strong  as  any  the  Greek  language 
affords.  (Aristotle,  o.uo\^co::  from  dzi  a»v).  They  are  the  same 
words  which  are  used  to  express  the  eternity  of  God.  If  they 
have  a  secondary  and  limited  meaning  in  some  applications,  the 
subject  and  context  should  be  appealed  to,  in  order  to  settle  the 
sense,  Now,  when  these  words  are  used  to  describe  a  state, 
they  always  express  one  as  long  as  the  nature  of  the  subject  to 
which  they  are  applied  can  permit.  When,  e.  g.,  the  hills  are 
called  everlasting,  it  is  evidently  meant,  that  they  will  endure  as 
long  as  the  earth  on  which  they  rest.  Now  if  "  everlasting  tor- 
ment" is  said  to  be  the  state  of  a  sinful  soul,  those  who  believe 
the  soul  immortal  are  bound  to  understand  by  it  a  duration  of 
the  punishment  coeval  with  that  of  the  sufferer's  being.  See 
thus  Rev.  xiv  :  ii  ;  xx  :  10  ;  withxxii :  5  ;  2Thess.  i  :  9 ;  Mark 
iii  :  29  ;  Matt,  xviii  :  8.  The  conclusive  fact  is,  that  in  Matt. 
XXV  :  46,  the  same  word  describes  the  duration  of  the  saint's 
bliss  and  the  sinner's  penalty.  If  the  latter  is  not  properly  un- 
ending, the  former  is  not. 

But  more  than  this  :  Many  texts  convey  the  idea  that  the 

torments  of  sinners  will   never  end,  in  terms 

Eternal  Torments     ^^    modes   to   which    this    quibble    cannot 

taught  m  otlier  1  erms.  ,         _,  ,  r  r  ^        i 

attach,      ihus,  the  state  oi  men  alter  death 

is  changeless  ;  and  when  the  state  of  it  is  fixed  at  death,  nothing 

more  can  be  done  to  modify  it:  Eccles.   ix  :  lo  ;  John  ix  :  4  ; 

Eccles.   xi  :  3.     Then   it   is   asserted   that  "  their  worm  dicth 

not."     "  The  fire  is  not  quenched."     Mark  ix  :  43-47  ;  John  iii : 

3  and  36  ;  Luke  xvi  :  26  ;  Rev.  xxi  :  8.     Compared  with  verses 

I  and  4,  Rev.  xxii  :  1 1,  12. 

But  the   strength   of  our  argument   is,  that   to   teach   the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  857 

5.  Universalists  Conti-a-  Hmited  duration  of  the  punishment  of  sin, 
diet  whole  Scripture;  as  Universalists  and  Restorationists  have  to 
Satan's  Personaht}'.—  contradict  nearly  every  fact  and  doctrine  of 
of  the  Bible.  We  have  seen  how  they  are 
compelled  by  their  dogma  to  deny  the  personality  of  Satan. 
The  Scriptures  bear  upon  their  very  face  this  truth,  that  man 
must  fulfill  some  condition  in  order  to  secure  his  destiny.  Let 
that  faith  on  which  salvation  turns  be  what  it  may,  it  is  a  some- 
thing the  doing  or  not  doing  of  which  decides  the  soul's  state  in 
different  ways.  See  e.  g.,  Mark  xvi  :  16,  as  one  of  a  thousand 
places.  But  if  the  Universalist  is  true,  he  who  believes  and  he 
who  believes  not,  will  fare  precisely  alike.  And  here  I  may  add 
that  powerful  analogical  argument ;  that  under  the  observed 
course  of  God's  providence,  men  are  never  treated  alike  irre- 
spective of  their  doings  and  exertions  ;  conduct  always  influ- 
ences destiny.  But  if  the  Universalist  is  true,  the  other  world 
will  be  in  contradiction  to  this. 

Again  :  if  either  the  Universalist  or  Restorationist  is  true, 
There  is  no  Pardon,    there  is  no  grace,  no  pardon,  no  redemption, 
&c.,    nor   Satisfaction    and  no  salvation.     For  according  to  both,  all 
by  Christ.  ^I^g  guilt  men  contract  is  paid  for ;  according 

to  the  one  party,  in  temporal  sufferings  on  earth  ;  according  to 
the  other,  in  temporary  sufferings  beyond  the  grave.  Now  that 
which  is  paid  for  by  the  sinner  himself  is  not  remitted  to  him. 
There  is  no  pardon  or  mercy.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  there  is 
any  salvation.  For  the  only  evils  to  which  the  sinner  is  at  any 
time  liable,  he  meets  and  endures  to  the  full.  None  are  escaped ; 
there  is  no  deliverance ;  no  salvation.  So  we  may  charge,  that 
their  doctrines  are  inconsistent  with  that  of  Christ's  satisfaction 
or  atonement.  For  of  course,  if  each  sinner  bears  his  own 
guilt,  there  is  no  need  of  a  substitute  to  bear  it.  Hence  we 
find  the  advocates  of  these  schemes  explaining  away  the  vicari- 
ous satisfaction  of  Christ. 

Indeed,  it  may  justly  be  added,  that  the  tendency  of  their 

,      .    ,    system  is  to  depreciate  the  authority  of  the 
Universahsts  Skeptical,    ttt       1     -        j  •.  1  •         •      /•  . 

^  Word,  to    deny   its    plenary  inspiration,  to 

question  its  teachings  with  irreverent  license,  and  to  disclose 
much  closer  affinities  with  infidelity  than  with  humble  faith. 
This  charge  is  fully  sustained  by  the  history  of  Universalist 
churches  (so  called)  and  of  their  teachers  and  councils.  Finally, 
passing  over  for  the  time,  the  unanswerable  argument,  that  sin 
has  infinite  ill  desert,  as  committed  against  an  excellent,  perfect 
and  universal  law,  and  an  infinite  lawgiver,  I  may  argue  that 
even  though  the  desert  of  a  temporary  season  of  sinning  were 
only  temporary  penalties,  yet  if  man  continues  in  hell  to  sin  for- 
ever, he  will  continue  to  suffer  forever.  While  he  was  paying 
off  a  previous  debt  of  guilt  he  would  contract  an  additional  one, 
and  so  be  forever  subject  to  penalty. 

An  attempt  is  made  to  argue  universal  salvation  from  a 


858  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

'  .  ^     ^         ^       few   passages   represented  by  Rom.   v  :  18, 
Their  Proof-texts  Con-         j    ^   /^  ^^    •  1  •    1    i.i  j  <<     11  >' 

g;^g,.g(j_  and  I  Lor.  xv  :  22,  in  which  the  word     all, 

is  used.  I  reply,  ist,  that  those  who  use  this 
argument  do  not  believe  that  "  all,"  or  any  "  come  into  con- 
demnation" by  Adam's  sin,  or  "  die  in  Adam  ;"  and  they  have 
no  right  to  argue  thence  that  they  will  be  saved  in  Christ.  They 
cannot  contradict  me  when  I  charge  them  with  flatly  denying 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt  to  any  of  his  posterity.  I  reply, 
2d,  that  the  word  "  all  "  is,  notoriously,  used  in  the  Scripture 
when  it  often  does  not  mean  actual  universality ;  but  only  all  of 
a  certain  class  ;  Matt,  iii  :  5  ;  Mark  i  :  37.  So,  in  these  texts, 
the  meaning  obviously  is,  that  as  in  Adam  all  are  condemned, 
ail  die,  who  are  federally  connected  with  him,  so,  in  Christ,  all 
savingly  connected  with  Him  are  made  alive.  See  the  context. 
The  very  chapter  which  says,  "  The  free  gift  came  upon  all," 
&c.,  begins  by  saying  that  being  "justified  by  faith,"  we  have 
peace  v/ith  God.  It  must  be  then  that  the  free  gift  comes  upon 
"  all  "  that  believe.  So  i  Cor.  xv  :  22,  is  immediately  followed 
by  these  words  :  "  But  every  man  in  his  own  order,  Christ  the 
first  fruits;  afterwards  they  that  are  Christ's  at  His  coming." 
Obviously,  it  is  "  all "  who  are  Christ's,  who  are  made  alive  in 
Him.  But  let  the  Scripture  tell  us  who  are  Christ's.  "  If  any 
man  have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  His."  There  is 
this  answer  also,  to  the  Universalist,  quoting  i  Cor.  xv  :  22,  that, 
apply  it  to  whom  we  will,  it  teaches  after  all,  not  future  blessed- 
ness, but  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 

This  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  also  suggests  an  argu- 

^      .         ^   ment  against  Universalism,  because  it  is  most 
The      Doctrine    of       1        1        ,  1.-1.-1  . 

Two  Resurrections.  Clearly  taught  that  there  are  two  resurrec- 
tions ;  one  for  the  just  and  one  for  the  unjust; 
one  desirable,  and  one  dreadful ;  one  for  which  holy  men  of 
old  strove,  and  one  which  they  shunned.  But  if  all  at  the  res- 
urrection were  renewed  and  saved,  there  would  be  but  one  res- 
urrection. The  passage  quoted  from  Jno.  v:29,  settles  that 
point.  For  it  cannot  be  evaded  by  the  figment  of  a  metaphori- 
cal resurrection,  i.  e.,  a  conversion  in  this  life,  because  of  this 
Christ  had  thus  been  speaking  in  verses  25  to  27.  It  is  in  contrast 
with  this,  that  He  then  sets  the  real,  material  resurrection 
before  us,  in  verses  28,  &c.  Moreover,  if  the  resurrection  be 
made  a  metaphorical  one,  then  in  verse  29,  we  should  have  the 
good,  in  common  with  the  wicked,  coming  out  of  that  state  of 
depravity  and  ruin,  represented  by  the  "graves  "  of  verses  25,  26. 
(See  also,  Phil,  iii :  1 1  ;   Heb.  xi  :  35). 

If  the  modern   Universalist  scheme  is  true,  then  the  only 
Death  Would    Not    thing  which  prevents  this  life  from  being  an 
be  a  Judgment  to  Sin-    unmingled  curse,  and  death  a  natural  good,  is 
"^^^"  the  pain  of  parting  and  dissolution.     If  these 

were  evaded  by  a  quick  and  easy  death,  it  would  be  an  immeas- 
urable benefit ;  a  step  to  an  assured  blissful  state,  from  one  both 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY. 


859 


sinful  and  unhappy.  The  most  fortunate  hfe  here  is  almost 
worthless,  compared  with  heaven.  Hence,  when  one  is  sud- 
denly taken  from  this  life,  it  is  not  a  penalty,  but  a  favour.  We 
must  contradict  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach,  of  sudden  deaths 
being  a  judgment  of  God  against  sinners.  The  antediluvians 
were  gloriously  distinguished  from  Noah,  by  being  illustriously 
rewarded  for  their  sins  by  a  sudden  and  summary  introduction 
to  holiness  and  happiness ;  while  he  was  punished  for  his  piety, 
by  being  condemned  to  many  hundreds  of  years  of  suffering, 
including  all  the  horrors  of  his  watery  imprisonment.  So,  the 
Sodomites  were  rewarded  for  their  sins,  while  Lot  was  punished 
by  his  piety.  The  cruel  Egyptians  were  swept  into  glory  on 
the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea,  while  Moses  was  punished  for  his 
obedience  by  a  tiresome  pilgrimage  of  forty  years. 

Again :  the  assertion  that  each  man's  temporal  sufferings  in 
Sins  Are  Not  Ade-  ^^^^^  life,  and  in  avticulo  mortis,  are  a  just 
quately  Requited,  recompense  for  his  sins,  is  false.  Scripture 
^'^^^^-  and  observation  deny  it ;  the  former  in   Ps. 

Ixxii  :  2,  14;  Luke  xvi  :  25,  and  similiar  passages;  the  latter  in 
the  numerous  instances .  seen  by  every  experienced  person, 
where  the  humble,  pure,  retired,  prayerful  Christian  spends 
years  in  pain,  sickness,  and  poverty  ;  while  the  sturdy  rake  or 
covetous  man  revels  in  the  sensual  joys  or  gains  which  he  pre- 
fers, and  then  dies  a  painless  and  sudden  death.  In  short,  the 
facts  are  so  plainly  against  this  theory,  that  the  notorious 
inequality  of  deserts  and  rewards  in  this  life  has  furnished  to 
every  reflecting  mind,  both  pagan  and  Christian,  one  of  the 
strongest  evidences  in  favour  of  future  rewards  and  punishments. 

In  this  connection  I  would  argue  also,  that  on  the  modern 
^   ,  „,    , ,  ^,  Universal  scheme,  God  would  often  be  odi- 

God  Would    lliere-  1  •      4.        td    i.  -n       1  •  r^ 

fore  be  Partial.  ously  unjust.     But  See  Ps.  Ixxxix  :  14;  Gen. 

xviii  :  25  ;  Rom.  ii  :  6,  &c.  Now  our  adver- 
saries stoutly  deny  that  any  guilt  is  imputed  to  Christ  and  pun- 
ished in  Him.  Hence,  the  flagrant  inequality  remains,  accord- 
ing to  them,  forever  uncompensated.  The  vilest  and  the  purest 
would  receive  the  same  rewards,  nay,  in  many  cases,  the 
advantage  would  be  against  the  good  ;  Providence  would  often 
reward  vice  and  punish  virtue.  For,  if  the  monster  of  sin  is  at 
death  renewed  and  carried  immediately  to  heaven,  just  as  is  the 
saint,  thenceforward  they  are  equal ;  but  before  the  sinner  had 
the  advantage.  While  holy  Paul  was  wearing  out  a  painful  life 
in  efforts  to  do  good,  many  a  sensualist,  like  his  persecutor 
Nero,  was  floating  in  his  preferred  enjoyments.  Both  died  vio- 
lent and  sudden  deaths  ;  and  then,  as  they  met  in  the  world  of 
spirits,  the  monster  receives  the  same  destiny  with  the  saint. 
So  every  one  of  even  a  short  experience,  can  recall  instances 
somewhat  similar,  which  have  fallen  under  his  own  observation. 
I  can  recall   a  pair  of  such  persons,  whose  history  may 


86o 


SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 


illustrate  both  my  last  arguments.  Their 
lives  and  deaths  were  nearly  cotemporar^', 
and  I  was  acquainted  with  the  history  of  both.  The  one  was  a 
Christian  female,  in  whom  a  refined  and  noble  disposition,  sanc- 
tified by  grace,  presented  one  of  the  most  beautiful  examp'es 
of  virtue  which  this  world  can  often  see.  She  united  early 
and  long-tried  piety,  moral  courage,  generosity,  self-devotion, 
with  the  most  feminine  refinement  of  tastes,  charity  and  tender- 
ness. There  was  a  high  frame  of  devotion  without  a  shade  of 
austerity  ;  there  was  the  courage  of  a  martyr,  without  a  tinge 
of  harshness.  She  combined  the  most  rigid  economy  towards 
herself  with  the  most  liberal  benefactions.  For  many  years, 
she  denied  herself  the  indulgence  of  her  elegant  tastes,  except 
such  as  nature  offered  without  expense  in  the  beauties  of  flower, 
and  forest,  and  landscape,  in  order  that  she  might  husband  the 
proceeds  of  a  moderate  competency  for  the  needy,  for  the  suf- 
fering, and  for  God.  Her  days  were  passed  in  a  pure  retire- 
ment, far  from  the  strifes  and  corruptions  of  the  world.  Her 
house  was  the  unfailing  refuge  of  the  sick  and  the  unfortunate 
among  her  kindred  and  the  poor  ;  her  life  was  little  else  than  a 
long  and  painful  ministration  to  their  calamities  ;  and  more  than 
once  she  had  flown,  with  a  moral  heroism  which  astonished  her 
friends,  into  the  midst  of  pestilence,  to  be  the  ministering  angel 
at  the  solitary  couch  of  her  suffering  relatives.  Never  did  neg- 
lect cause  her  devotion  to  flag,  and  never  did  reproach  or  injury 
wring  from  her  a  word  or  deed  of  retaliation,  although  she 
received  not  a  little  of  both,  even  from  those  whom  she  strove 
to  bless.     Such  was  her  life  to  the  last. 

And  now  let  us  look  at  her  earthly  reward.  Her  whole  life 
was  spent  in  uncertain,  or  in  feeble  health.  It  was  often  her  lot 
to  have  her  kindness  misunderstood,  and  her  sensitive  afiections 
lacerated.  She  scarcely  tasted  earthly  luxuries  or  ease ;  for  she 
lived  for  others.  At  length,  three  years  before  her  death,  she 
was  overtaken  by  that  most  agonizing  and  incurable  of  all  the 
scourges  which  afflict  humanity,  cancer.  For  three  long  years 
her  sufferings  grew,  and  with  them  her  patience.  The  most 
painful  remedies  were  endured  in  vain.  ^  The  last  weeks  of  her 
life  were  spent  in  utter  prostration,  and  unceasing  agony,  so 
strong  that  her  nurses  declared  themselves  amazed  and 
affrighted  to  see  a  nature  so  frail  as  man's  bearing  such  a  load 
of  anguish.  A  peculiarity  of  constitution  deprived  her  even 
of  that  poor  resource  of  suffering,  the  insensibility  of  opiates. 
Up  to  the  very  last  hour  of  death,  there  was  no  respite  ;  with- 
out one  moment  of  relaxation  in  the  agony,  to  commend  her 
soul  to  her  Saviour;  maddened  by  unbearable  pangs;  crying 
like  her  dying  Redeemer,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me,"  she  approached  the  river  of  death,  and  its  waters 
were  not  assuaged  to  ease  her  passage. 

Now  for  the  contrast.     During  nearly  the  same  period,  and 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  86 1 

in  an  adjoining  county,  there  lived  a  man,  who  embodied  as 
many  repulsive  qualities  as  it  has  ever  been  my  lot  to  see  in  one 
human  breast.  His  dark,  suspicious  eye,  and  malignant  coun- 
tenance gave  fit  expression  to  the  soul  within.  Licentious,  a 
drunkard,  devoid  of  natural  affection,  dishonest,  quarrelsome, 
litigious,  a  terror  to  his  neighbors,  he  was  soiled  with  dark  sus- 
picion of  murder.  He  revelled  in  robust  health  ;  and  as  far  as 
human  eye  could  see,  his  soul  was  steeped  in  ignorance  and 
sensuality,  and  his  conscience  seared  as  with  heated  iron.  He 
was  successful  in  escaping  the  clutches  of  the  law,  and  seemed 
to  live  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  preferred  indulgences.  At 
length  this  man,  at  the  monthly  court  of  his  county,  retired  to  a 
chamber  in  the  second  story  of  the  tavern,  drunk,  as  was  his 
what,  and  lay  down  to  sleep.  The  next  morning,  he  was  found 
under  the  window,  stone  dead,  and  with  a  broken  neck. 
Whether  he  had  walked  in  his  sleep,  or  the  hand  of  revenge 
had  thrust  him  out,  was  never  known.  In  all  probability  he 
never  knew  what  killed  him,  and  went  into  the  other  world 
without  tasting  a  single  pang,  either  in  body  or  soul,  of  the  sor- 
rows of  dissolution. 

Now  let  us  suppose  that  these  two  persons,  appearing  so 
nearly  at  the  same  time  in  the  presence  of 
ThesTEquajT  ^  ^  ^od,  were  together  introduced  into  the  same 
heaven.  Where  is  the  equality  between  their 
deserts  and  their  rewards?  On  the  whole,  the  providential  dif- 
ference was  in  favour  of  the  most  guilty.  If  this  is  God's  jus- 
tice, then  is  He  more  fearful  than  blind  chance,  than  the  Prince 
of  Darkness  himself.  To  believe  our  everlasting  destiny  is  in 
the  hand  of  such  unprincipled  omnipotence,  is  more  horrible 
than  to  dwell  on  the  deceitful  crust  of  a  volcano.  i\nd  if 
heaven  consists  in  dwelling  in  His  presence,  it  can  have  no 
attractions  for  the  righteous  soul. 

In  conclusion ;  whether  UniversaHsm  be  true  or  false,  it  is 
Universalism  has  no  absurdity  to  teach  it.  If  it  turns  out  true, 
Motive  for  Propa-  no  one  will  have  lost  his  soul  for  not  learning 
^^'^"S  ^^"  it.     If  it  turns  out  false,  every  one  who  has 

embraced  it  thereby  will  incur  an  immense  and  irreparable  evil. 
Hence,  though  the  probabilities  of  its  truth  were  as  a  million  to 
one,  it  would  be  madness  and  cruelty  to  teach  it. 

But,  apart  from  all  argument,  what  should  a  right-minded 
man  infer  from  the  fact,  that  of  all  intelligent  and  honest  stu- 
dents of  the  Scriptures,  scarcely  one  in  a  milHon  has  found  the 
doctrine  of  universal  salvation  in  them. 

The  chief  practical  argument  in   favor  of  Universalism  is, 

doubtless,  the  sinful  callousness  of  Christians 

sensibSly  oFEeSvers.""  towards   this   tremendous    destiny   of  their 

sinful  fellow-creatures.    Can  we  contemplate 

the  exposure  of  our  friends,   neighbours,  and  children  to  a  fate 

so  terrible,  and  feel  so  little  sensibility,  and  make  efforts  so  few 


862  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

and  weak  for  their  deliverance !  And  yet,  we  profess  to  have 
faith  !  How  can  our  unbelieving  friends  be  made  to  credit  the 
sincerity  of  our  convictions  ?  Here,  doubtless,  is  the  best 
argument  of  Satan,  for  their  skepticism.  And  the  best  refu- 
tation of  this  heresy  is  the  exhibition  by  God's  people  of  a 
holy,  tender,  humble,  yet  burning  zeal  to  pluck  men  as  brands 
from  the  burning. 


LECTURE  LXXIIl. 

THE  CIVIL  MAGISTRATE. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  State  the  two  theories  of  the  origin  of  civil  government  out  of  a  "  social  con- 
tract," and  out  of  the  ordinance  of  God.     Establish  the  true  one. 

2.  What  is  civil  liberty?     What  its  limits  ? 

3.  What  are  the  proper  objects  of  the  powers  of  the  Civil  Magistrate?  What 
their  limits  ?  What  the  limits  to  the  obedience  of  a  Christian  man  to  the  Civil  Mag- 
istrate ?     When  and  how  far  is  the  Christian  entitled  to  plead  a  '  higher  law  ? ' 

4.  Is  the  citizen  bound  always  to  passive  obedience  ?  If  not,  when  does  the 
right  of  forcible  resistance  to  an  unjust  government  begin  ? 

See  Confession  of  Faith,  ch.  23.  Blackstone's  Com.  bk.  i.  Introduc.  ^  2. 
Paley's  Moral  Phil.  bk.  vi,  ch.  1-5,  Alontesqttieii  Esprit  des  Loix,  bk.  i.  ch.  11. 
Burlemaqjii,  Vol.  iv,  pt.  i.  Loclie's  Treatise  of  Civil  Gov.,  bk.  ii.  Princeton 
Review,  Jan.,  1851.  IBledsoe  on  Liberty  and  Slavery,  ch.  I,  So.  Rev.  Art. 
'  Civil  Liberty.'     Defence  of  Virginia  and  the  South,  ch.  7,  §  3. 

'  I  ^HE  duty  of  the  Christian  citizen  to  civil  society  is  so  exten- 

sive  and  important,  and  so  many  questions   arise  as  to  its 

limits  and  nature,  the  propriety  of  holding 

Examined  in  its  Chris-  office,  the  powers  exercised  by  the  magis- 

tian  Aspects  Only.  011  1  r    ^        r^-,  ^ 

trate,  &c.,  that  the  teacher  of  the  Church 
should  be  well  grounded  in  the  true  doctrine  of  the  nature  of 
the  commonwealth.  Hence,  our  Confession  has  very  properly 
placed  this  doctrine  in  its  23d  chapter.  It  is  emphatically  a 
doctrine  of  Scripture. 

Three  opposing  theories  have  prevailed,  among  nominally 

Christian   philosophers,  as  to  the  origin  and 

I.  Theories  of  Gov-    extent  of  the  Civil  Magistrate's  powers.    The 

ernment  Ungm.  •=>  1  •    1 

one  traces  them  to  a  supposed  social  con- 
tract. Men  are  to  be  at  first  apprehended,  they  say,  as  insu- 
lated individuals,  separate  human  integers,  all  naturally  equal, 
and  each  by  nature  absolutely  free,  having  a  natural  liberty  to 
exercise  his  whole  will,  as  a  "  Lord  of  Creation."  But  the 
experience  of  the  exposure,  inconveniences,  and  mutual  vio- 
lences of  so  many  independent  wills,  led  them,  in  time,  to  be 
willing  to  surrender  a  part  of  their  independence,  in  order  to 
secure  the  enjoyment  of  the  rest  of  their  rights.  To  do 
this,  they  are  supposed  to  have  conferred,  and  to  have  entered 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  863 

into  a  compact  with  each  other,  binding  themselves  to  each 
other  to  submit  to  certain  rules  and  restraints  upon  their  natu- 
ral rights,  and  to  obey  certain  ones  selected  to  rule,  in  order  that 
the  power  thus  delegated  to  their  hands  might  be  used  for  the 
protection  of  the  remaining  rights  of  all.  Subsequent  citizens 
entering  the  society,  by  birth  or  immigration,  are  supposed  to 
have  given  an  assent,  express  or  implied,  to  this  compact.  The 
terms  of  it  form  the  organic  law,  or  constitution  of  the  com- 
monwealth. And  the  reason  why  men  are  bound  to  obey  the 
legitimate  commands  of  the  magistrate  is,  that  they  have  thus 
bargained  with  their  fellow-citizens  to  obey,  for  the  sake  of 
mutual  benefits. 

Many   writers,  as  Blackstone  and  Burlemaqui,  are  too  sen- 
sible not  to  see  that  this  theory  is  false  to 

Modified^°"'''^''''^^'^°'^  ^1^^  f^cts  of  the  case  ;  but  they  still  urge, 
that  although  individual  men  never  existed, 
in  fact,  in  the  insulated  state  supposed,  and  did  not  actually 
pass  out  of  that  state  into  a  commonwealth  state,  by  a  formal 
social  contract ;  yet  such  a  contract  must  be  assumed  as  implied, 
and  as  offering  the  virtual  source  of  political  power  and  obli- 
gation. Thus  Blackstone,  iibi  supra,  p.  47  :  "  But  though  society 
had  not  its  formal  beginning  from  any  convention  of  individuals, 
actuated  by  their  wants  and  their  fears ;  yet  it  is  the  sense  of 
their  weakness  and  imperfection  which  keeps  mankind  together  ; 
that  demonstrates  the  necessity  of  this  union  ;  and  that  there- 
fore is  the  solid  and  natural  foundation,  as  well  as  the  cement  of 
civil  society."  To  us  it  appears,  that  if  the  compact  never 
occurred  in  fact,  but  is  only  a  supposititious  one,  a  legal  fiction 
it  is  no  basis  for  any  theory,  and  no  source  for  practical  rights 
and  duties. 

The  other  theory  may  be  called  the  Christian.  It  traces 
civil  government  to  the  will  and  providence 
eory.  ^^  God,  wlio,  from  the  first,  created  man  with 
social  instincts  and  placed  him  under  social  relations  (when  men 
were  few,  the  patriarchal,  as  they  increased,  the  commonwealth). 
It  teaches  that  some  form  of  social  government  is  as  original  as 
man  himself.  If  asked,  whence  the  obligation  to  obey  the  civil 
magistrate,  it  answers :  from  the  will  of  God,  which  is  the  great 
source  of  all  obligation.  The  fact  that  such  obedience  is  greatly 
promotive  of  human  convenience,  well-being  and  order,  con- 
firms and  illustrates  the  obligation,  but  did  not  originate  it. 
Hence,  civil  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God ;  magistrates 
rule  by  His  providence  and  by  HlIS  command,  and  are  His 
agents  or  ministers.  Obedience  to  them,  in  the  Lord,  is  a  reli- 
gious duty,  and  rebellion  against  them  is  not  only  injustice  to 
our  fellow-men,  but  disobedience  to  God.  This  is  the  theory 
plainly  asserted  by  Paul,  Rom.  xiii  :  1-7,  and  i  Peter  ii  :  13-18 
It  may  be  illustrated  by  the  parental  state. 

This  account  of  the  matter  has  been  also  pushed  to  a  mosi 


864  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

f  •  ■  vicious  extreme,  by  the  party  known  as  Le- 
^ Theory  of  Divine  gitimatists,  or  advocates  of  the  Divine  right 
of  royalty.  The  Bible  here  teaches  us,  they 
assert,  that  the  power  the  civil  magistrate  holds,  is  in  no  sense 
delegated  from  the  people,  but  wholly  from  God  ;  that  the 
people  have  no  option  to  select  or  change  their  form  of  govern- 
ment, any  more  than  a  child  has  to  choose  its  parent,  or  a  soul 
the  deity  it  will  worship;  that  no  matter  how  oppressive  or 
unjust  the  government  may  be,  the  citizen  has  no  duty  nor  right 
but  passive  submission,  and  that  the  divinely  selected  form  is 
hereditary  monarchy — the  form  first  instituted  in  the  hand  of 
Adam,  continued  in  the  patriarchal  institution,  re-affirmed  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  never  departed  from  except  by  heaven- 
defying  republicans,  &c. 

This  servile  theory  we  easily  refute  by  many  facts.  Men 
P  r     ■  ii"i  society  do  not  bear  to  rulers  the  relation 

of  children  to  parents,  either  in  their  greater 
weakness,  inferiority  of  knowledge  or  virtue,  or  in  the  natural 
affection  felt  for  them,  but  are,  in  the  general,  the  natural  equals 
of  their  rulers.  Hence,  the  argument  from  the  family  to  the 
commonwealth  to  prove  that  it  is  monarchical,  utterly  fails.  2d. 
The  chosen  form  given  by  God  to  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth 
was  not  monarchical,  but  republican.  And  when  He  reluc- 
tantly gave  them  a  king,  the  succession  was  not  hereditary,  but 
virtually  elective,  as  witness  the  cases  of  David,  Jeroboam,  Jehu, 
&c.  3d.  The  New  Testament  does  not  limit  its  teachings  to  the 
religious  obligation  to  obey  kings,  but  says  generally  !  "  the 
Powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God."  "  There  is  no  power  but 
of  God ":  thus  giving  the  religious  source,  equally  to  the 
authority  of  kings  and  constables,  and  giving  it  to  any  form  of 
government  which  providentially  existed  de  facto.  The  thing 
then,  which  God  ordains,  is  not  a  particular  form  of  gov- 
ernment, but  that  men  shall  maintain  some  form  of  govern- 
ment. Last,  it  is  peculiarly  fatal  to  the  Legitimatist  theory  that 
the  actual  government  of  Rome,  which  the  New  Testament 
immediately  enjoined  Christians  to  obey,  was  not  a  legitimate, 
nor  a  hereditary  monarchy,  but  one  very  lately  formed  in  the 
usurpation  of  Octavius  Caesar,  and  not  in  a  single  instance  trans- 
mitted by  descent,  so  far  as  Paul's  day. 

On  the  contrary,  while  we  emphatically  ascribe  the  fact  of 
civil  government  and  the  obligation  to  obey 
PelpTe.^"^""  ^°'  *^  it,  to  the  will  of  God,  we  also  assert  that  in 
the  secondary  sense,  the  government  is,  poten- 
tially, the  people.  The  original  source  of  the  power,  the 
authority  and  the  obligation  to  obey  it,  is  God,  the  human 
source  is  not  an  irresponsible  Ruler,  but  the  body  of  the  ruled 
themselves,  that  is,  the  sovereignty,  so  far  as  it  is  human,  resides 
in  the  people,  and  is  held  by  the  rulers,  by  delegation  from 
them.     It  is,  indeed,  the  ordinance  of  the  supreme  God,  that 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  865 

such  delegation  should  be  made,  and  the  power  so  delegated  be 
obeyed,  by  each  individual ;  but  still  the  power,  so  far  as  it  is 
human,  is  the  people's  power,  and  not  the  ruler's.  This  is 
proved  by  two  facts.  All  the  citizens  have  a  general  native 
equality  ;  they  possess  a  common  title,  in  the  general,  to  the 
benefits  of  existence,  as  being  all  human  beings  and  children  of 
a  common  Creator.  They  are  all  alike  under  the  golden  rule, 
which  is  God's  great  charter  of  a  general  equality.  Hence  the 
second  fact,  that  the  government  is  for  the  governed,  not  for  the 
especial  benefit  of  the  governors.  The  object  of  the  institution, 
which  God  had  in  view,  was  the  good  of  the  community.  The 
people  are  not  for  the  rulers,  but  the  rulers  for  the  people. 
This  is  expressly  stated  by  Paul,  Rom.  xiii  :  3,  4.  Now,  as 
before  stated,  the  rulers  have  no  monopoly  of  sense,  virtue, 
experience,  natural  right,  over  their  fellow-citizens,  and  hence 
the  power  of  selecting  rulers  should  be  in  the  citizens. 

Having  thus  cleared  the  Scriptural  theory  from  the  odious 
Social  Contract  Re-    perversions  of  the  advocates  of  "  legitimacy," 
futed.   ist.  Not  Found-    I  proceed  to  affirm  it  against  the  vain  dream 
ed  on  Facts.  ^f  ^  social  contract,  and  the  theory  of  obh- 

gation  based  upon  it.  ist.  It  is  notoriously  false  to  the  actual 
facts.  Civil  government  is  not  only  a  theory,  but  a  fact ;  the 
origin  of  it  can  therefore  be  only  found  in  a  fact,  not  in  a  legal 
fiction.  The  fact  is,  that  men  never  rightfully  existed  for  one 
moment  in  the  state  of  independent  insulation,  out  of  which 
they  are  supposed  to  have  passed,  by  their  own  option, 
into  a  state  of  society.  God  never  gave  them  such  indepen- 
dency. Their  responsibility  to  Him,  and  their  civic  relations  to 
fellow-men,  as  ordained  by  God,  are  as  native  as  their  existence 
is.  They  do  not  choose  their  civic  obligations,  but  are  born 
under  them  ;  just  as  a  child  is  born  to  his  filial  obligations.  And 
the  simple,  practical  proof  is,  that  if  one  man  were  now  to  claim 
this  option  to  assume  civic  relations  and  obligations,  or  to 
decline  them,  and  so  forego  the  advantages  of  civic  life,  any 
civilized  government  on  earth  would  laugh  his  claim  to  scorn, 
and  would  immediately  compel  his  allegiance  by  force.  The 
mere  assumption  of  such  an  attitude  as  that  imagined  for  the 
normal  one  of  man,  and  of  the  act  in  which  it  is  supposed 
government  legitimately  originates,  would  constitute  him  an 
outlaw ;  a  being  whom  every  civil  society  claims  a  natural  right 
to  destroy ;  the  right  of  self-preservation. 

The  theory  is  atheistic,  utterly  ignoring  man's  relation  to 

his  Creator,  the  right  of  that  Creator  to  deter- 
2d.  Atheistic.  ^j^^  under  what   obligations  man  shall  live  ; 

and  the  great  Bible  fact,  that  God  has  determined  he  shall  live 
under  civic  obligations. 

It  is  utterly  unphilosophical,   in  that,  while  the  ethics  of 

government  should  be  an  inductive  science, 

3d.  Not  Inductive.        ^^.^  ^j^^^^^  -^^  ^^^  ^^^  -^^  ^^^^,  ^^^^^^  ^^St  be, 

55* 


866  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

utterly  devoid  of  experimental  evidence  !  Hence  it  has  no 
claims  to  be   even  entertained   for  discussion,  in  foro  scientice. 

If  the  authority  of  laws  and  constitutions  and  magistrates 
originates  in  the  social  contract,  then  certain 
4th.  Inconsistent.  n^Qst  inconvenient  and  preposterous  conse- 
quences would  logically  follow.  One  is,  that  however  incon- 
venient and  even  ruinous,  the  institutions  of  the  country  might 
become,  by  reason  of  the  changes  of  time  and  circumstance,  no 
majority  could  ever  righteously  change  them,  against  the  will  of 
any  minority  ;  for  the  reason  that  the  inconveniences  of  a  bar- 
gain which  a  man  has  voluntarily  made,  are  no  justification  for 
his  breaking  it.  The  righteous  man  must  not  change,  though 
he  has  "  sworn  to  his  own  hurt."  Another  inconvenience 
would  be,  that  it  could  never  be  settled  what  were  the  terms 
agreed  upon  in  the  original  social  contract ;  and  what  part  of 
the  existing  laws  were  the  accretions  of  time  and  of  unwar- 
ranted power,  save  where  the  original  constitution  was  in  wri- 
ting. A  worse  consequence  would  be,  that  if  the  compact 
originated  the  obligation  to  obey  the  civil  magistrate,  then  any 
one  unconstitutional  or  unjust  act  of  the  ruler  would  break  that 
compact.  But  when  broken  by  one  side,  it  is  broken  for  both  ; 
and  allegiance  would  be  wholly  voided. 

Last  :  The  civil  magistrate  is  armed  with  some  powers, 
which  could  not  have  been  created  by  a  social  contract  alone  ; 
because  they  did  not  belong  to  the  contracting  parties,  viz  : 
individual  men  cannot  give,  for  instance,  the  right  of  life  and 
death.  No  man's  life  belongs  to  him,  but  to  God  alone.  He 
cannot  transfer  what  does  not  belong  to  him  ;  nor  can  one  say, 
that  although  the  individual  may  not  have  the  right  to  delegate 
away  a  power  over  his  own  life  which  he  does  not  possess,  yet 
the  community  may  be  justified  in  assuming  it,  by  the  law  of 
self-preservation.  For  there  is  no  community  as  yet,  until  this 
theory  of  its  derivation  from  a  social  contract  is  established. 
There  is  only  a  number  of  individual,  unrelated,  independent 
men. 

To  elucidate  and  establish  these  ideas  farther,  let  us  inquire 
Natural  Liberty  What?  ^hat  is  the  true  difference  between  man's 
Civil  Liberty  how  Differ-  natural  liberty  and  his  civil  liberty.  The 
i"g-  advocates  of  the  theory  of  a  social  compact 

seem  to  consider,  as  indeed  some  of  them  define,  men's  natural 
liberty  to  be  a  freedom  to  do  what  they  please.  They  all  say  that 
Government  limits  or  restrains  it  somewhat,  the  individual  sur- 
rendering a  part  in  order  to  have  the  rest  better  protected. 
Hence  it  follows,  that  all  gov^ernment,  even  the  republican, 
being  of  the  nature  of  restraint,  is  in  itself  a  natural  evil,  and  a 
natural  infringement  on  right,  to  be  endured  only  as  an  expedi- 
ent for  avoiding  the  greater  evil  of  anarchy  !  Well  might  such 
theorists  deduce  the  consequence,  that  there  is  no  ethical 
ground  for  obedience  to  government,  except  the  implied  assent 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  86/ 

-of  the  individual;  the  question  would  be,  whether  it  is  not  a 
surrender  of  duty  to  come  under  such  an  obligation  ?  They 
also,  of  course,  confound  a  man's  natural  rights  and  natural 
liberties  together ;  th?y  would  be  still  more  consistent,  if,  with 
their  great  inventor,  Hobbes,  they  denied  that  there  was  any 
such  thing  as  rights,  distinct  from  might,  until  they  were  facti- 
tiously created  by  the  restraints  of  civil  government. 

This  view  I   consider,  although  embraced   in  part  by  the 

current  of  Christian  moralists,  is  only  worthy 

Radical  Theory  False,  ^f  ^^  atheist,  who  denies  the  existence  of 

True  Stated.  .    .  '    ,      .  ,       ^ 

any  origmal  relations   between  the  Creator 

and  creature,  and  of  any  original  moral  distinctions.  It  ignores 
the  great  fact,  that  man's  will  never  was  his  proper  law ;  it 
simply  passes  over,  in  the  insane  pride  of  human  perfectionism, 
the  great  fact  of  original  sin,  by  which  every  man's  will  is  more 
or  less  inclined  to  do  unrighteousness.  It  falsely  supposes  a 
state  of  nature,  in  which  man's  might  makes  his  right ;  whereas 
no  man  is  righteously  entitled  to  exist  in  that  state  for  one 
instant.  But  if  you  would  see  how  simple  and  impregnable  is 
the  Bible  theory  of  natural  and  civil  liberty,  take  these  facts,  un- 
disputed by  any  Christian.  The  rule  of  action  is  moral :  moral 
obligations  are  as  original  (as  natural)  as  man  himself.  The 
practical  source  and  measure  of  them  is  God's  will.  That  will, 
ad  initio,  binds  upon  man  certain  relations  and  duties  which  he 
owes  to  God  and  to  his  fellow  man ;  and  also  defines  his  right, 
i.  e.,  those  things  which  it  is  the  duty  of  other  beings  to  allow 
him  to  have  and  to  do.  Man  enters  existence  with  those  moral 
relations  resting,  by  God's  will,  upon  him.  And  a  part  of  that 
will,  as  taught  by  His  law  and  providence  is,  that  man  shall  be 
a  member  of,  and  obey,  civil  government.  Hence,  government 
is  as  natural  as  man  is.  What  then  is  man's  natural  liberty? 
I  answer :  it  is  freedom  to  do  whatever  he  has  a  moral  right  to 
do.  Freedom  to  do  whatever  a  man  is  physically  able  to  do, 
is  not  a  liberty  of  nature  or  law,  but  a  natural  license,  a  natural 
iniquity.  What  is  civil  liberty  then  ?  I  reply  still,  it  is  (under 
a  just  government)  freedom  to  do  whatever  a  man  has  a  moral 
right  to  do.  Perhaps  no  government  is  perfectly  just.  Some 
withhold  more,  some  fewer  of  the  citizen's  moral  rights :  none 
withhold  them  all.  Under  all  governments  there  are  some 
-rights  left ;  and  so,  some  liberty.  A  fair  and  just  government 
would  be  one  that  would  leave  to  each  subject  of  it,  in  the 
general,  (excepting  exceptional  cases  of  incidental  hardship,) 
freedom  to  do  whatever  he  had  a  moral  right  to  do,  and  take 
away  all  other,  so  far  as  secular  and  civic  acts  are  concerned. 
Such  a  government,  then,  would  not  restrain  the  natural  liberty 
of  the  citizens  at  all.  Their  natural  would  be  identical  with 
their  civic  liberty.  Government  then  does  not  originate  our 
rights,  neither  can  it  take  them  away.     Good  government  does 


868  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

originate  our  liberty  in  a  practical  sense,  i.  e.,  it  secures  the 
exercise  of  it  to  us. 

The  instance  most  commonly  cited,  as  one  of  a  natural 
No  Natural  Ricrht  -  right  Surrendered  to  civil  society,  is  the  right 
Sacrificed  to  Just  Gov-  of  self-defence.  We  accept  the  instance, 
eminent.  ^^^  assert  that  it    fully    confirms    our  view. 

For  if  it  means  the  liberty  of  forcible  defence  at  the  time  the 
unprovoked  aggression  is  made,  that  is  not  surrendered ;  it  is 
allowed  under  all  enlightened  governments  fully.  If  it  mean  the 
privilege  of  a  savage's  retaliation,  I  deny  that  any  human  ever 
had  such  a  right  by  nature.  "  Vengeance  is  mine,  saith  the 
Lord."  If  it  mean  the  privilege  to  attach  the  righteous  tempo- 
ral penalty,  and  execute  it  ourselves,  on  the  aggressor,  so  as  to 
deter  him  and  others  from  similar  assaults,  I  deny  that  this  is 
naturally  a  personal  right ;  for  nothing  is  more  unnatural  than 
for  a  man  to  be  judge  in  his  own  case.  Other  instances  of  sup- 
posed loss  of  natural  rights  are  alleged  with  more  plausibility  ; 
as  when  a  citizen  is  restrained  by  law  from  selling  his  corn  out 
of  the  country,  (a  thing  naturally  moral  per  sc)  from  some  eco- 
nomic motive  of  public  good  ;  and  yet  the  righteous  citizen 
feels  bound  to  obey.  I  reply  :  if  the  restriction  of  the  govern- 
ment is  not  unjust,  then  there  exists  such  a  state  of  circum- 
stances among  the  fellow  citizens,  that  the  sale  of  the  corn  out 
of  the  countr}^,  under  those  circumstances,  would  have  been  a 
natural  breach  of  the  law  of  righteousness  and  love  towards 
them.  So  that,  under  the  particular  state  of  the  case,  the  man's 
natural  right  to  sell  his  corn  had  terminated.  Natural  rights 
may  change  with  circumstances. 

Here  we  may  understand,  in  what  sense  "  all  men  are  by 
nature  free  and  equal."  Obviously  no  man 
Natural  Equality  what?  j  |^  nature  free,  in  the  sense  of  being  born 
Golden  Rule.  .       •'  .  -'  .,     ,.  ,         , 

m  possession  oi  that  vile  license  to  do  what- 
ever he  has  will  and  physical  ability  to  do,  which  the  infidel 
moralists  understand  by  the  sacred  name  of  liberty.  For  every 
man  is  born  under  obligation  to  God,  to  his  parents,  and  to  such 
form  of  government  as  may  providentially  be  over  his  parents. 
(I  may  add  the  obligation  to  ecclesiastical  government  is  also 
native).  But  all  men  have  a  native  title  to  that  liberty  which  I 
have  defined,  viz  :  freedom  to  do  what  they  have  a  moral  right 
to  do.  But  as  rights  differ,  the  amount  of  this  freedom  to 
which  given  men  have  a  natural  title,  varies  in  different  cases. 
But  all  men  are  alike  in  this  ;  that  they  all  have  the  same  gene- 
ral right  by  nature,  to  enjoy  their  own  natural  quanta jn  of  free- 
dom, be  it  what  it  may.  Again  :  are  all  men  naturally  equal  in 
strength,  in  virtue,  in  capacity,  or  in  rights  ?  The  thought  is 
preposterous.  The  same  man  does  not  even  continue  to  have 
the  same  natural  rights  all  the  time.  The  female  child  is  born 
with  a  different  set  of  rights  in  part,  from  the  male  child  of  the 
same  parents ;  because  born  to  different  native  capacities  and 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  869 

natural  relations  and  duties.  In  what  then  are  men  naturally 
equal  ?  I  answer,  first :  in  their  common  title  to  the  several 
quantiims  of  liberty  appropriate  to  each,  differing  as  they  do  in 
different  men ;  second,  they  are  equal  in  their  common 
humanity,  and  their  common  share  in  the  obligations  and  bene- 
fits of  the  golden  rule.  All  men  are  reciprocally  bound  to  love 
their  neighbors  as  themselves  ;  and  to  do  unto  others,  as  they 
would  that  others  should  do  to  them.  See  Job  xxxi  :  13-15. 
Here  inspiration  defines  that  equality  as  in  full  force  between 
master  and  slave  ;  and  as  entirely  compatible  with  that  relation. 
Here  is  the  great  charter  of  Bible  republicanism.  Men  have  by 
nature,  a  general  equality  in  this  ;  not  a  specific  one.  Hence, 
the  general  equality  of  nature  will  by  no  means  produce  a  lite- 
ral and  universal  equality  of  civil  condition ;  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  different  classes  of  citizens  have  very  different 
specific  rights ;  and  this  grows  out  of  their  differences  of  sex, 
virtue,  intelligence,  civilization,  &c.,  and  the  demands  of  the 
common  welfare.  Thus,  if  the  low  grade  of  intelligence,  virtue 
and  civilization  of  the  African  in  America,  disqualified  him  for 
being  his  own  guardian,  and  if  his  own  true  welfare  (taking  the 
"  general  run"  of  cases)  and  that  of  the  community,  would  be 
plainly  marred  by  this  freedom  ;  then  the  law  decided  correctly, 
that  the  African  here  has  no  natural  right  to  his  self-control,  as 
to  his  own  labour  and  locomotion.  Hence,  his  natural  liberty  is 
only  that  which  remains  after  that  privilege  is  retrenched.  Still 
he  has  natural  rights,  (to  marriage,  to  a  livelihood  from  his  own 
labour,  to  the  Sabbath,  and  to  the  service  of  God,  and  immor- 
tality, &c.,  &c).  Freedom  to  enjoy  all  these  constitutes  his 
natural  liberty,  and  if  the  laws  violate  any  of  it  causelessl}^,  they 
are  unjust. 

The  two  remaining  questions  are  more  practical,  and  may 

be  discussed   more   briefly.     We  discard  the 
Civil  GXnmenr°^   theocratic    conception    of   civil    government. 

The  proper  object  of  it  is,  in  general,  to  secure 
to  man  his  life,  liberty,  and  property,  i.  e.,  his  secular  rights. 
Man's  intellectual  and  spiritual  concerns  belong  to  different 
jurisdictions  ;  the  parental  and  the  ecclesiastical.  The  evidence 
is,  that  the  parental,  and  the  ecclesiastical  departments  of  duty 
and  right  are  separately  recognized  by  Scripture  and  distinctly 
fenced  off,  as  independent  circles.  (See  also  Jno.  xviii  :  35,  36; 
Luke  xii  :  14  ;  2  Cor.  x  :  4  ;  Matt,  xxii  :  21).  The  powers  of 
the  civil  magistrate  then,  are  limited  -by  righteousness,  (not 
always  by  facts)  to  these  general  functions,  regulating  and^ 
adjudicating  all  secular  rights,  and  protecting  all  members  of 
civil  society  in  their  enjoyment  of  their  several  proper  shares 
thereof.  This  general  function  implies  a  number  of  others  ; 
.  prominently,  these  three :  taxation,  punishment,  including  capi- 
tal for  capital  crimes,  and  defensive  w^ar.  For  the  first,  (see 
Matt,  xxii  :  21  ;  Rom.  xiii  :  6,  7  ;)  for  the  second,  (see  Gen.  ix : 


8/0  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

5,  6 ;  Num.  xxxv  :  33  ;  Rom.  xiii  :  1-5  ;)  for  the  third,  (Ex. 
xvii  :  9,  and  passim  in  Old  Testament  ;  Luke  iii  :  14,  15  ;  Acts 
x  :  I,  2).  The  same  thing  follows  from  the  power  of  capital 
punishment.  Aggressive  war  is  wholesale  murder.  The  magis- 
trate who  is  charged  with  the  sword,  to  avenge  and  prevent 
domestic  murder,  is  a  fortiori  charged  to  punish  and  prevent 
the  foreign  murderer. 

But,  few  governments   are  strictly  just;  and  the   inquiry 
Duty  of  Christians    therefore    arises :     How   shall   the    Christian 
to  Unjust  Civil  Gov-    citizen  act,  under  an  oppressive  command  of 
emment.  ^^    cw'A    magistrate  ?      I    reply,    if   the    act 

which  he  requires  is  not  positively  a  sin  per  se,  it  must  be 
obeyed,  although  in  obeying  we  surrender  a  clear,  moral  right 
of  our  own.  The  proof  is  the  example  of  the  Bible  saints — - 
the  fact  that  the  very  government  to  which  Paul  and  Peter  chal- 
lenged obedience  as  a  Christian  duty,  was  far  from  being  an 
equitable  one;  and  the  truth  that  a  harsh  and  unjust  govern- 
ment is  a  far  less  evil  than  the  absence  of  all  government.  The 
duty  of  obedience,  does  not,  as  we  have  seen,  spring  out  of  our 
assent,  nor  from  the  government's  being  the  one  of  our  choice, 
but  from  the  providence  of  God  which  placed  us  under  it, 
coupled  with  the  fact  that  government  is  His  ordinance.  If  the 
thing  commanded  by  the  civil  magistrate  is  positively  sinful, 
then  the  Christian  citizen  must  refuse  obedience,  but  yield  sub- 
mission to  the  penalty  therefor.  Of  course,  he  is  entitled, 
while  submitting  either  in  this  or  the  former  case,  to  seek  the 
peaceable  repeal  of  the  sinful  law  or  command  ;  but  that  he  is 
bound  to  disobey  it  in  the  latter  case,  is  clear  from  the  example 
of  the  apostles  and  martyrs  :  Acts  iv  :  19  ;  v  ;  29  ;  and  from  the 
obvious  consideration,  that  since  the  civil  magistrate  is  but  God's 
minister,  it  is  preposterous  God's  power  committed  to  him  should 
be  used  to  pull  down  God's  authority.  But  does  not  the  duty 
of  disobeying  imply  that  there  ought  to  be  an  immunity  from 
penalty  for  so  doing?  I  reply,  of  course,  in  strict  justice,  there 
ought ;  but  this  is  one  of  those  rights  which  the  private  Chris- 
tian may  not  defend  by  violence,  against  the  civil  magistrate. 
The  magistrate  is  magistrate  still,  and  his  authority  in  all  things, 
not  carrying  necessary  guilt  in  the  compliance,  is  still  binding, 
notwithstanding  his  unrighteous  command.  To  suffer  is  not  sin 
per  se :  hence,  although  when  he  commanded  you  to  sin,  you 
refused,  when  he  commands  you  to  suffer  for  that  refusal,  you 
acquiesce.  It  should-  be  again  remembered,  that  an  unjust 
government  is  far  better  than  none  at  all.  It  is  God's  will  that 
such  a  government,  even,  should  be  obeyed  by  individuals, 
rather  than  have  anarchy.  If  a  man  holds  office  under  a  govern- 
ment, and  the  official  function  enjoined  upon  him  is  positive  sin, 
it  is  his  duty  to  resign,  giving  up  his  office  and  its  emoluments, 
along  with  its  responsibilities,  and  then  he  has  no  more  concern 
with  the  unrighteous  law  than  any  other  private  citizen.     That 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  871 

concern  is  simply  to  seek  its  repeal  by  constitutional  means.    If 

the  majority,  or  other  controlling  force  in  the  constitution  make 

that  appeal  unattainable  for  him,  then  the  private  citizen  is  clear 

of  the  sin,  and  has  no  concern  with  the  sinful  law.     He  is  neither 

bound,  nor  permitted  to  resist  it  by  force.     But  for  an  official 

of  government  to  hold  office,  promise  official  obedience,  and 

draw  his  compensation  therefor,  and  yet  undertake  to  refuse  to 

perform  the  official  duties  of  his  place,  on  the  ground  that  his 

conscience  tells  him  the  acts  are  morally  wrong ;  this  is  but  a 

disgusting  compound  of  pharisaism,  avarice  and  perjury.    Thus 

we  have,  in  a  nutshell,  the  true  doctrine  of  a  "  higher  law,"  as 

distinguished  from  the  spurious. 

One  more  question  remains :  Who  is  to  be  the  judge  when 

^.  ,,   f^.    ,   T  ^      the   act   required  of  the  citizen  by  law  is 
Right  of  Private  Tude-  n  ^t  i       .1  •■•  ,. 

ment  Asserted.  morally  wrong  ?    I  reply,  the  citizen  himself, 

in  the  last  resort.  This  is  the  great  Protes- 
tant and  Scriptural  doctrine  of  private  judgment.  We  sustain 
it  by  the  obvious  fact,  that  when  the  issue  is  thus  made  between 
the  government  and  its  citizen,  if  that  is  to  be  absolute  judge  in 
its  own  case,  there  is  an  end  of  personal  independence  and 
liberty.  But  the  government's  judgment  being  thus  set  aside, 
there  remains  no  other  human  umpire.  2d.  Every  intellio-ent 
being  lies  under  moral  relations  to  God,  which  are  immediate 
and  inevitable.  No  creature  in  the  universe  can  answer  for  him, 
in  a  case  of  conscience,  or  step  between  him  and  his  guilt. 
Hence,  it  is  the  most  monstrous  and  unnatural  injustice  that  any 
power  should  dictate  to  his  conscience,  except  His  divine  Judge. 
See  Prov.  ix  :  12  ;  Rom,  xiv  :  4.  The  clear  example  of  Bible 
saints  sustains  this,  as  cited  above  ;  for  while  they  clearly  recoo-- 
nized  the  legitimacy  of  the  magistrate's  authority,  they  claim 
the  privilege  of  private  judgment  in  disobeying  their  commands 
to  sin.  If  it  be  said  that  this  doctrine  is  in  danger  of  intro- 
ducing disorder  and  insubordination,  I  answer,  no;  not  under 
any  government  that  at  all  deserves  to  stand  ;  for  when  the  right 
of  private  judgment  is  thus  exercised,  as  an  appeal  to  God's 
judgment,  and  with  the  fact  before  our  faces,  that  if  we  feel 
bound  to  disobey  the  law,  we  shall  be  still  bound  to  submit 
meekly  to  the  penalty,  none  of  us  will  be  apt  to  exercise  the 
privilege  too  lightly. 

Thus  far,  we  have  considered  the  individual  action  of  the 
f  R  V  lu  ^^^^^^^  towards  an  unrighteous  government, 
tion  DislusSed.  ^^°  ^'  and  have  shown  that,  even  when  constrained 
to  disobey  an  unrighteous  law,  he  must  sub- 
mit to  the  penalty.  Do  we  then  inculcate  the  slavish  doctrine 
of  passive  obedience,  which  asserts  the  divine  and  irresponsible 
right  of  kings,  so  that  even  though  they  so  abuse  their  powers 
that  the  proper  ends  of  government  are  lost,  God  forbids  resist- 
ance ?  By  no  means.  To  Americans,  whose  national  existence 
and  glory  are  all  founded  on  the  "  right  of  revolution,"  slight 


8/2  SYLLABUS     AND     NOTES 

arguments  would  probably  be  needed  to  support  it.  But,  it  is 
the  duty  of  thinking  men  to  have  some  better  support  for  their 
opinions,  than  the  popularity  of  them. 

The  argument  for  passive  obedience,  from   Romans  13,  is 
Argument  for   Pas-    ^^    ^^^^   view,    plausible,    but   will    not   bear 
sive    Obedience    Re-    inquiry.     Note  that  the  thing  which  is  there 
f^^^'^'^-  declared   to  be  of  divine   authority,  is  not  a 

particular  form  of  government,  but  submission  to  the  govern- 
ment, whatever  it  is.  God  has  not  ordained  what  government 
mankind  shall  live  under,  but  only  that  they  shall  live  under  a 
government.  The  end  of  government  is  not  the  gratification 
of  the  rulers,  but  the  good  of  the  ruled.  When  a  form  of  gov- 
ernment entirely  ceases,  as  a  whole,  to  subserve  its  proper  end, 
is  it  still  to  subsist  forever  ?  This  is  preposterous.  Who  then 
is  to  change  it?  The  submissionists  say.  Providence  alone. 
But  Providence  works  by  means.  Shall  those  means  be  exter- 
nal force  or  internal  force?  These  are  the  only  alternatives  ; 
for  of  course  corrupt  abuses  will  not  correct  themselves,  when 
their  whole  interest  is,  to  be  perpetuated.  External  force  is 
unauthorized  ;  for  nothing  is  clearer  than  that  a  nation  should 
not  interfere,  uncalled,  in  the  affairs  of  another.  Again  :  we 
have  seen  that  the  sovereignty  is  in  the  people  rather  than  the 
rulers  ;  and  that  the  power  the  rulers  hold  is  delegated.  May 
the  people  never  resume  their  own,  when  it  is  wholly  abused  to 
their  injury?  There  may  be  obviously  a  point  then  where 
"resistance  to  tyrants  is  obedience  to  God."  The  meaning  of 
the  apostle  is,  that  this  resistance  must  be  the  act,  not  of  the 
individual,  but  of  the  people.  The  insubordination  which  he 
condemns,  is  that  which  arrays  against  a  government,  bad  like 
that  of  the  Csesars  perhaps,  the  worse  anarchy  of  the  individual 
will.  But  the  body  of  the  citizens  is  the  commonwealth  ;  and 
when  the  commonwealth  arises  and  supersedes  the  abused 
authority  of  her  public  servants,  the  allegiance  of  the  individual 
is  due  to  her,  just  as  before  to  her  servants.  But  it  may  be 
asked,  How  can  the  commonwealth  move  to  do  this,  except  by 
the  personal  movement  of  individuals  against  the  "  powers  that 
be  ?  "  I  answer,  (and  this  explains  the  true  nature  of  the  right 
of  revolution)  :  true  :  but  if  the  individual  moves,  when  he  is 
not  inspired  by  the  movement  of  the  popular  heart ;  when  his 
motion  is  not  the  exponent,  as  well  as  the  occasion,  of  theirs, 
he  has  made  a  mistake — he  has  done  wrong — he  must  bear  his 
guilt.  It  is  usually  said,  as  by  Paley,  that  a  revolution  is  only 
justifiable  when  the  evils  of  the  government  are  worse  than  the 
probable  evils  of  the  convulsive  change  ;  and  when  there  is  a 
reasonable  prospect  of  success.  The  latter  point  is  doubtful. 
Some  of  the  noblest  revolutions,  as  that  of  the  Swiss,  were 
rather  the  result  of  indignation  at  intolerable  wrong,  and  a  gen- 
erous despair,  than  of  this  calculation  of  chances  of  success. 


LECTURE  LXXIV. 

RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY. 


SYLLABUS. 

1.  Establish  the  doctrine  of  Religious  Liberty  and  the  right  of  Private  Judgment. 

2.  Discuss  and  refute  the  theory  of  Church  Establishments  held  by  Prelatists, 
and  thd,t  of  Chalmers. 

3.  What  are  the  proper  relations  between  State  and  Church  ?     And  what  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  civil  magistrate  over  ecclesiastical  persons  and  property  ? 

Conf.  of  Faith,  ch.  20,  and  ch.  23,  ^  3.  Locke's  first  Letter  on  Toleration. 
Milton's  Areopagitica,  or  Plea  for  the  Liberty  of  Unlicensed  Printing.  Vattel, 
Law  of  Nature  and  Nations,  bk.  i,  ch.  12.  Montesquieu  Esprit  dcs  Lois,  bk. 
XXV.  Chalmers  on  Church  Establishments.  Gladstone's  Church  and  State. 
Review  of  Gladstone,  by  Lord  Macaulay. 

"V^OU   may  suppose  it  superfluous  to  lecture  on  a  subject  so 
well    understood,    and   universally   admitted,    as    this    is 
among  us ;  but  you  will  be   mistaken.     Our 
Obsokte!  ^"^'^°"  """^    ancestors    understood    it,   because    they  had 
studied   it,  with  all  the  earnestness  of  perse- 
cuted men,  who  had  to  contend  with  sword  and  pen.     We  hold 
their  correct  theory  ;  but,  it   is  to  be  feared,  only  by  prescrip- 
tion and  prejudice.     Consequence  :  that  when  temptation  comes, 
and  the  theory  of  religious  liberty  seems  awkward  just  at  a  par- 
ticular juncture,  we  shall  be  carried  about  with  any  wind  of  doc- 
trine.    This  is  ever  the  course  ;  for  fundamental  truths  to  be 
practically  learned  by  one  generation,  handed  down  to  the  next, 
held  by  prejudice  for  a  few  generations,  (the  words  used  and 
sense  dropped)  and  at  last  lost  in  practice. 

Again,  many,  even  of  statesmen,  do  not  defend  Religious 
Liberty  on  sound  and  rational  grounds.  Even  Brougham  and 
Macaulay  (see  his  History  of  England)  seem  not  to  have  found 
out  that  the  proposition,  "  man  is  not  responsible'  for  his  belief," 
is  not  the  same  with  that  of  Religious  Liberty. 

The  arguments  by  which  Augustine  induced  persecution  of 
the  Donatists  have  ever  been  the  staple  ones 
votatfof'KrsStion."  of  the  Roman  Church,  for  intolerance. 
They  are  so  wretched  and  flimsy,  as  to  be 
unworthy  of  a  separate  discussion.  Their  answer  will  be  ap- 
iparent  in  the  sequel.  But  it  should  be  observed,  that  the  doc- 
trines of  intolerance  are  consistent  with  the  claims  of  the 
Romish  Church  to  infallibility,  and  supremacy.  A  man  ought 
not  to  have  liberty  to  destroy  his  own  soul  by  refusing  the  infal- 
lible teachings  of  God,  on  earth.  This  claim  of  infallibility 
puts  the  relations  between  the  unbeliever  and  Church,  on  the 
same  footing  as  those  between  the  unbeliever  and  his  God.  To 
both  he  is  guilty.  But  is  the  claim  of  infallibility  to  be  im- 
plicitly admitted  ?     The   answer  to  this  question  shows  that  a 

873 


8/4  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

denial  of  the  right  of  private  judgment,  is  essential  to  the 
Romanists'  intolerance.  For  if  the  infallibility  is  to  be  brought 
into  question,  then  the  basis  of  the  right  to  enforce  absolute 
conformity  is  melted  away. 

A  far  more  plausible  argument  for  the   right  to  enforce 

religious  conformity  has  been  glaoced  at  by 
Heresy  is  Cnmmal.  ^^^^^  Romish  writers.  It  is  hard  to  answer  by 
many  a  Protestant,  who  inconsiderately  ho^Js  to  Religious  Lib- 
erty. Man  is  responsible  for  his  belief.  His  religious  error  is 
not  simply  his  misfortune,  but  his  crime.  Bad  volitions  are  at 
the  bottom.  Truth  is  discoverable,  certain.  This  crime  has  a 
very  certain,  though  indirect  evil  influence ;  not  only  on  men's 
religious,  but  secular  conducts  and  interests.  The  heretic 
injures  the  public  morals,  health,  order,  wealth,  the  value  of 
real  estate,  &c.,  &c.  He  may  be  doing  mischief  on  a  far  larger 
scale  than  the  bandit.  Now,  if  his  religious  belief  is  of  a  moral 
quality,  voluntary  and  criminal ;  and  is  also  mischievous — highly 
so  ;  and  that,  to  the  interests  both  Church  and  State  protect, 
why  not  punishable  ?  Why  does  it  claim  to  be  exempted  from 
the  list  of  offences  amenable  to  law?  The  cruel  abuses  of  the 
power  of  punishing  heretics,  by  ignorant  or  savage  rulers,  are 
no  argument  against  its  use,  any  more  than  the  Draconian  pen- 
alties conclude  against  moderate  power  in  the  magistrate,  of 
repressing  secular  crimes."     Answer. 

Every  thing  which  is  moral  evil,  and  is  detrimental  to  the 

interests  of  society,  is  not,  therefore,  prop- 
Remedy^"''''  ^"'  *'    ^rly  punishable  by  society  (e.   g.  prodigality, 

indolence,  gluttony,  drunkenness).  The 
thing  must  be,  moreover,  shown  to  be  brought  within  the  scope 
of  the  penalties,  by  the  objects  and  purposes  of  Government ; 
and  the  relevancy  of  corporeal  pains  and  penalties  to  be  a  use- 
ful corrective ;  and  the  directness  of  the  concern  of  society  in 
its  bad  consequences.  Society  may  not  infringe  directly  a  nat- 
ural right  of  one  of  its  members,  to  protect  itself  trom  an  indi- 
rect injury  which  may  or  may  not  occur.  It  only  has  a  right 
to  stand  on  the  defensive,  and  wait  for  the  overt  aggression.  It 
is  not  the  business  of  society  to  keep  a  man  from  injuring  him- 
self, but  from  injuring  others.  As  to  his  personal  interests  he  is 
his  own  master.  Now,  that  religious  error,  though  moral  evil, 
voluntary  and  guilty,  does  not  come  within  the  above  conditions, 
we  will  show,  and  at  the  same  time  will  adduce  arguments  of  a 
positive  weight. 

I.  Premise.       Church   and  State   are    distinct   institutions. 
State   and    Church    since  theocratic   institutions  are  done   away; 
Have   Different    Ob-    they  have  distinct  objects.     The  Church  is  to 
j^^^^-  teach  men  the  way  to  heaven,  and  to  help 

them  thither.  The  State  is  to  protect  each  citizen  in  the  enjoy- 
ment ot  temporal  rights.  The  Church  has  no  civil  pains  and 
penalties  at  command ;  because  Christ  has  given  her  none ;  and 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  8/5 

because  they  have  no  relevancy  whatever  to  produce  her  object 
— the  hearty  behef  of  saving  truth  (see  John  xviii  :  36 ,  2  Cor. 
X  :  4,  &c.).  The  main  weapon  of  the  Civil  Government  is  civil 
pains  and  penalties  (Rom.  xiii  :  4). 

2.  Premise.     In  the  State,  the  good  of  the  governed  being 
the   object,    (in  temporal  interests)  the  gov- 
e"aS?SweS."'^  ^^^'    erned  are  the  earthly  sources  of  sovereignty. 
Rulers  have  only  a  delegated  power,  and  are 
the  agents  of  the  community,  who  depute  to  them,  for  the  gen- 
eral good,  so  much  of  power  as  is  necessary. 

.  Now,  for  the  direct  argument,  observe :  The  Church's  bear- 
ing penal  power,  and  being  armed  with  civil 
noSrPenlltS "'''  P^i^s,  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  her  spirit- 
ual character,  her  objects,  and  the  laws  of 
Christ.  Rome  herself  did  not  claim  it.  When  the  Church  per- 
secutes, it  is  through  the  commonwealth.  This  lends  its  cor- 
poreal power  to  the  Church.  When  Romish  Priests  persecute, 
they  bear  a  twofold  capacity,  magisterial  and  clerical. 

But,  by  what  power  shall  the  magistrate  persecute  his  own 

Sovereign  ?       Whence   delegated  ?      All   the 

1.  Magistrate  has  no  i        i  •      j    i         i.    j        -nt  -i.- 
Spiritual  Jurisdiction,      power  he  has  IS  delegated.     Now   a   citizen 

cannot  delegate  to  another  the  right  of  judg- 
ing for  him  what  is  right,  because  to  do  so  is  a  self-contradic- 
tion, and  unutterable  absurdity ;  and  because  to  do  so  would  be 
a  crime.  For  the  merit  of  all  my  religious  belief  and  acting 
depends  on  my  free,  conscientious  convictions ;  and  God  has 
made  me  responsible  for  them,  so  that  I  cannot  give  away  the 
responsibility. 

By  the  same  general  fact,  it  appears  that  when  intolerance 

2.  Nor  Rif^ht  to  Ar-  commands  me  to  surrender  my  private  judg- 
rest  my  Private  Judg-  ment  in  religion,  it  is_  to  the  Magistrate  I  sur- 
"^^"^'  render  it ;  i.  e.,  a  man  not  sacred,  nor  even 
clerical,  an  officer  purely  secular,  and  even  upon  Romish 
teachings,  no  more  entitled  than  me,  to  judge  in  religion.  But, 
it  is  said,  "  the  Magistrate  persecutes  not  for  himself,  but  on 
behalf  of  a  Church  infallible  and  divinely  authorized,  to  which 
he  has  dutifully  bowed,  and  lent  his  secular  power,  as  he  ought ; 
so  that  it  is  to  this  infallible  Church  we  are  compelled  by  the 
Magistrate's  sword  to  surrender  our  private  judgment."  No  ; 
how  did  the  Magistrate  find  out  that  this  Church  is  infallible  ? 
Suppose  I,  the  subject,  choose  to  dispute  it  ?  who  shall  decide 
between  us  ?  Not  the  Church  in  question  ;  because  the  very 
question  in  debate  between  us  is,  whether  the  Church  ought  to 
be  allowed  a  supreme  authority  over  my,  or  his  conscience.  It 
is  to  the  civil  Magistrate's  judgment,  after  all,  that  I  am  com- 
pelled to  yield  my  private  judgment,  and  that,  in  a  thing  purely 
religious. 

The  civil  authority  of  the  magistrate  is  not  due  to  his  Chris- 


'876  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

tianity,  but  to  his  official  character.  This 
Even  ctfstianf  ^°'    fo^lo^^'s    from  the    entire   distinctness  of  the 

Church  and  State  in  their  objects  and  charac- 
ters. It  is  proved  by  Scripture  asserting  the  civil  authority  of 
Pagan  magistrates;  Matt,  xxii  :  21  ;  Rom.  xiii  ;  i  Peter  ii  :  13. 
If  we  were  citizens  of  a  Mohammedan  or  pagan  country,  we 
should  owe  obedience  to  their  civil  rulers  in  things  temporal. 
And  this  shows  that  the  authority  is  not  dependent  on  the  mag- 
istrate's Christianity,  even  where  he  happens  to  be  a  Christian, 
Now  what  an  absurdity  is  it,  for  that  which  is  not  Christian  at 
all  to  choose  my  Christianity  for  me  ?  To  see  this,  only  sup- 
pose a  case  where  the  magistrate  is  actually  infidel.  The 
Greeks  and  Protestants  in  Constantinople  struggle  with  each 
other.  The  Turk,  more  sensible  than  intolerant  Christians, 
merely  stands  by  and  derides  both.  But  suppose  one  of  them 
should  manage  to  get  him  on  their  side,  and  use  his  ternporal 
power  to  persecute  their  brethren?  Can  a  Turkish  infidel,  who 
has  nothing  to  do  with  Christianity,  confer  on  one  sect  a  power 
to  persecute  another?  Confer  what  he  has  not?  Outrageous. 
But  the  reason  of  the  thing  is  the  same  in  any  other  country ; 
because  the  civil  authority  of  the  magistrate  is  no  more  due  to 
his  Christianity  than  that  of  the  Grand  Turk  in  Turkey,  who  has 
no  Christianity. 

But  suppose  the  persecuting  Church   repudiates  the  aid  of 

the  magistrate,  and  claims  that  she  herself, 
Shall  Coerce  ?   ^  '^'°"    ^^  ^  Spiritual  power,  is  entitled  to  wield  both 

swords,  temporal  and  spiritual,  for  suppres- 
sion of  error,  in  person,  as  Rome  does  in  some  of  her  more  im- 
perious moods.  Then  all  the  absurdities  are  incurred  which 
arise  from  confounding  the  two  opposite  societies  of  Church 
and  State  and  their  objects ;  and  all  the  Scriptures  above 
quoted  must  be  defied.  But  other  arguments,  still  more  un- 
answerable, apply.  Among  competing  religious  communions, 
which  shall  have  the  right  to  coerce  the  other?  Of  course,  the 
orthodox  one.  This  is  ever  the  ground  of  the  claim.  "  I  am 
right  and  you  are  wrong;  therefore,  I  must  compel  you  to  think 
as  I  do."  But  each  communion  is  orthodox  in  its  own  eyes. 
Every  one  is  erroneous  to  its  rivals.  If  Rome  says,  there  are 
evidences  of  our  being  the  apostolic  infallible  Church,  so  clear, 
that  no  one  can  resist  them  without  obstinate  guilt,  Geneva  says 
to  Rome  just  the  same.  Whatsoever  any  Church  believes,  it 
believes  to  be  true.  There  is  no  umpire  under  God ;  shall  the 
magistrate  decide  ?  He  has  no  right.  He  is  not  religious. 
There  is  no  umpire.  Each  one's  claim  to  persecute  is  equally 
good.     The  strongest  rules.     Might  makes  right. 

But  again  :  The  Church  cannot  use  persecution  to  gain  her 

end,  which   is  the    belief  of  religious   truth ; 
■;.    Coercion    Not  a     i  ii.-         i  i  i     i. 

Means  to  Faith.  because   penalties  have   no    relevancy  what- 

ever to  beget  belief.     Evidence  begets  con- 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  877 

viction ;  not  fear  and  pain.  While  we  do  not  think  that  beHef 
or  unbeUef  of  moral  truth  is  of  no  moral  character,  with- 
Brougham,  we  do  know  that  it  must  be  the  voluntary,  spon- 
taneous result  of  evidence,  and  that  it  must  be  rational.  That 
a  spiritual  society,  whose  object  is  to  produce  moral  beliefs,  and 
acts  determined  thereby,  should  do  it  by  civil  pains,  is  an  in- 
finite absurdity.  This  is  enhanced  by  the  other  fact :  that  the 
virtue  and  efficacy  of  religious  belief  and  acts  before  God  de- 
pend wholly  on  their  heartiness  and  sincerity.  Feigned  belief, 
unwilling  service,  are  no  graces,  but  sins  :  do  not  save,  but 
damn.  .  .  .  Nor  do  persecutions  have  any  preparing  effect 
to  open  the  mind  to  the  rational  and  moral  means  which  the 
Church  is  afterwards  to  use.  This  the  Augustinian  plea.  To 
punish,  imprison,  impoverish,  torment,  burn  a  man,  because  he 
does  not  see  your  arguments  as  strong  as  you  think  them,  is 
surely  a  strange  way  of  making  him  favorable  thereto  !  To 
give  him  the  strongest  cause  to  hate  the  reasoner,  is  a  strange 
way  to  make  him  like  the  reasonings!  The  most  likely  possible 
way  is  taken  to  give  him  an  ill  opinion  of  that  communion  he 
is  wished  to  join.  These  measures  have  some  natural  tendency, 
on  weak  natures,  to  make  hypocrites  ;  but  none  to  make  sin- 
cere believers. 

Under  this   head,   too,  notice  the   outrageous    impolicy  of 

.      ^   .   ,.     persecuting    measures.     Supposinsf  the    doc- 
Persecution  Prejudi-     'i  ■  ^ji.u  i.i 

ces  Truth.  trmes  persecuted  to  be   erroneous,  the  very 

way  is  taken  to  make  them  popular,  by  array- 
ing on  their  side  the  sentiments  of  injured  right,  virtuous  indig- 
nation, sympathy  with  the  oppressed,  and  in  general,  all  the 
noblest  principles,  and  to  make  the  opposing  truth  unpopular^ 
by  associating  it  with  high  handed  oppression,  cruelty,  &c. 
The  history  is,  that  no  communion  ever  persecuted  which  did 
not  cut  its  own  throat  thereby  unless  it  persecuted  so  as  to 
crush  and  brutify  wholly,  and  trample  out  all  active  religious 
life  pro  or  con  to  itself  The  persecuting  communion  dies, 
either  by  the  hand  of  the  outraged  and  irresistible  reaction  it 
produces ;  or  if  the  persecution  is  thorough,  by  the  syncope 
and  atrophy  of  a  spiritual  stagnation,  that  leaves  it  a  religious 
communion  only  in  name.  Of  the  former,  the  examples  are 
the  Episcopacy  of  Laud,  in  Scotland  and  England,  Colonial 
Church  of  Virginia  against  Baptists,  &c.  Of  the  latter,  the 
Popish  Church  of  France,  Spain,  Italy.  "  The  blood  of  the 
martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  Church." 

All  acts  of  religious   intolerance   are  inconsistent  with  the 
relations  which  God  has  established  between 

6,  Intrudes  into  God's   Himself  and    rational    souls.     Here    is    the 
r  rovincG. 

main  point.     God   holds  every  soul  directly 

responsible  to  Himself.     That  responsibility  necessarily  implies 

that  no  one  shall  step  in  between  him  and  his  God,     No  one 

can  relieve  him  of  his  responsibility,  answer  for  him  to  God,  and 


«7o  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

bear  his  punishment,  if  he  has  betrayed  his  duty.  Therefore 
no  one  should  interfere  to  hinder  his  judging  for  himself. 
'•What  hast  thou  to  do,  to  judge  another  man's  servant?" 
Here  it  is  plain  how  essential  the  claim  of  infallibility  is  to  a 
plausible  theory  of  persecution.  For  a  man  who  acknowledges 
himself  fallible,  to  intrude  his  leadership  by  force  on  his  fellow- 
man,  who  is  no  more  fallible  than  himself,  when  it  is  possible  he 
may  thereby  ruin  his  soul,  is  a  position  as  satanic  as  impudent. 
But  where  the  persecutor  can  say,  "  I  know  infallibly  that  my 
way  is  right,  and  if  he  will  come  into  it  he  will  certainly  be 
saved,"  there  is  a  little  plausibility.  But  if  infallibility  is  dis- 
proved, that  little  is  gone.  And  more  :  Each  man  is  directly 
bound  to  his  God  to  render  a  belief  and  service  hearty  ;  pro- 
ceeding primarily  from  a  regard  to  God's  will,  not  man's.  Else 
it  is  sin.  Now,  how  impious  is  he,  who,  professing  to  contend 
for  God,  thus  thrusts  himself  between  God  and  His  creature  ? 
Substitutes  fear  of  him  for  fear  of  God?  Thrusts  himself  into 
God's  place  ?  He  that  does  it  is  an  anti-Christ.  Man's  belief 
is  a  thing  sacred,  inviolable. 

7.  Let  it  be  added,  also,  that  persecutions  ruin  that  cause 
which  they  profess  to  promote,  the  cause  of  God,  by  demoral- 
izing the  persecuting  community.  They  tend  to  confound  and 
corrupt  all  moral  ideas  in  the  populace,  who  see  moral,  merci- 
ful, peaceful  men  punished  with  the  pains  due  to  the  most  atro- 
cious crimes,  because  they  do  not  take  certain  arguments  in  a 
certain  way.  They  beget  on  the  one  hand  subserviency,  hypoc- 
risy, cunning,  falsehood  and  deceit,  the  weapons  of  oppressed 
weakness  ;  and  on  the  other,  cruelty,  unmercifulness,  rapacity, 
injustice.  Ages  of  persecution  have  always  been  ages  of  deep 
moral  corruption  ;  and  where  persecution  has  been  successful, 
it  has  plunged  the  nations  into  an  abyss  of  vice  and  relaxed 
morals. 

Again :  we  have  hinted  at  the  tendency  of  intolerance  to 
disappoint  its  own  ends.  All  history  is  a 
vaL  DivSonr  ^^^'^'  Commentary  on  this.  More  persecution,  the 
more  sects,  (except  where  it  is  so  extreme 
as  to  produce  a  religious  paralysis,  and  there  there  are  no  sects, 
because  there  is  no  belief,  but  only  stupid  apathy  or  secret 
atheism).  Rome  tried  it  to  the  full.  And  under  her  regime, 
Christendom  was  more  and  more  full  of  sectaries,  who  increased 
till  the  freedom  of  the  Reformation  extinguished  them  :  Wal- 
denses,  Albigcnses,  Cathari,  Paulicians,  Beghards,  Fratricelli, 
Turlupins,  Brethren  of  Free  Spirit,  Wickliffeites,  Hussites,  &c., 
&c.  There  have  always  been  wider  divergences  of  doctrinal 
opinion,  within  the  bosom  of  the  Romish  Church  itself,  than 
there  are  now,  betv.-een  all  the  evangelical  branches  of  the 
Protestant  family,  with  all  their  freedom.  And  the  effect  of  the 
Reformation,  (most  in  freest  countries),  has  been  to  kill  off,  or 
render   perfectly  impotent,   all   more    extravagant  and  hurtful 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  879 

sects.  Where  are  any  Turlupins,  or  mystical  Pantheists  like 
those  of  Germany  of  the  14th  Century?  Where  any  Schwes- 
triones?  Manichaeans? 

9.  Religious  sects  are  nearly  harmless  to  the  State,  when 
they  are  no  longer  persecuted.  It  is  wholly  to  their  oppression 
that  their  supposed  factiousness  is  due  ;  cease  to  oppress,  and 
they  become  mild  and  loyal.  This  is  just  the  absurd  and 
treacherous  trick  of  persecutors,  to  say,  "  conventicles  are 
secret,"  when  it  is  their  oppression  which  makes  them  secret. 
They  would  gladly  be  open,  if  they  might  have  leave.  "  Con- 
venticles are  factious  ;"  it  is  injustice  which  makes  them  factious. 
Let  the  State  treat  all  sectaries  justly  and  mildly,  and  they  at 
once  have  the  strongest  motive  to  be  true  to  the  State ;  indeed, 
the  same  which  the  majority  has;  that  of  strongest  self-interest. 
Persecution  for  conscience'  sake  is  always  supremely  false 
and  hypocritical,  as  appears  by  this  fact. 
10.  Coercion  Hypo-  -pj^g  motive  assigned  by  persecuting  religion- 
ists is,  that  the  souls  of  men  may  be  saved 
from  the  ruinous  effects  of  error ;  of  the  heretic  himself,  if  he 
can  be  reclaimed  ;  of  others  whom  he  might  corrupt,  at  any 
rate.  But  while  they  have  been  imprisoning,  tormenting,  burn- 
ing men  of  innocent  morals,  because  they  held  some  forbidden 
tenets,  have  they  not  always  tolerated  the  grossest  vices  in 
those  who  would  submit  to  the  Church  ?  Adultery,  profanity, 
violence,  ignorance,  drunkenness,  gluttony?  Was  it  not  so 
during  all  the  Inquisition  in  Spain  and  Italy,  Laud's  persecu- 
tions in  England,  James'  in  Scotland  ?  But  a  bad  life  is  the 
worst  heresy.  Surely  this  destroys  souls  and  corrupts  commu- 
nities. Why  do  not  these  men  then,  who  so  vehemently  love 
the  souls  of  their  neighbours,  that  they  must  burn  their  bodies 
to  ashes,  love  the  vicious  enough  to  restrain  their  vices  ?  Per- 
secution for  opinion's  sake  is  wholly  a  political  measure  cloaked 
under  religion.  Its  true  object  always  is,  to  secure  domination, 
not  to  save  souls. 

This,  therefore,  is  the  only  safe  theory.     The  ends  of  the 
State   are  for  time  and  earth  ;  those  of  the 
Conclusion.  Church  are  for  eternity.     The  weapon  of  the 

State  is  corporeal,  that  of  the  Church  is  spiritual.  The  two 
cannot  be  combined,  without  confounding  heaven  and  earth. 
The  only  means  that  can  be  used  to  produce  religious  belief  are 
moral.  No  man  is  to  be  visited  with  any  civil  penalty  for  his 
belief,  as  long  as  he  does  not  directly  infringe  upon  the  purpose 
of  the  government,  which  is  the  protection  of  the  temporal 
rights  of  his  fellow-citizens.  The  State  is  bound  to  see  that 
every  man  enjoys  his  religious  freedom  untouched,  because  the 
right  to  this  religious  freedom  is  a  secular,  or  political  right. 

The  doctrine  of  religious  liberty  was  not  evolved  at  the 
Reformation :  Protestants  held  it  a  right  and  duty  to  persecute 
heretics.     "  Rome's  guilt  was  that  she  persecuted  those  nearer 


880  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES. 

right  than  herself,  and  did  it  cruelly  and  unjustly."  The  first 
treatise  taking  the  true  ground,  as  far  as  I  know,  was  written  by 
Brown  (founder  of  sect  of  Brownists).  Dr.  Jno.  Owen  wrote 
for  the  same  cause.  Dr.  Jeremy  Taylor  wrote  his  plea  for 
liberty  of  prophesying.  Milton  and  Locke  are  well  known. 
Roger  Williams,  of  Rhode  Island,  perhaps  deserves  the  credit 
of  being  the  first  Ruler  in  the  world,  who  granted  absolute  free- 
dom to  all  sects,  having  power  to  do  otherwise. 

The  separation  and  independence  of  Church  and  State  was 

II.  Church  and  State.  "°^  ^^^X  "^^  ^^'^^  doctrine  of  the  Refor- 
The  Protestant  Churches  mation.  No  Christian  nation  holds  it  to 
all  Estabhshed.  ^his  day,  except  ours.     In    17th    and   i8th 

centuries  some  Independents  and  others  in  England,  and  Sece- 
ders  in  Scotland,  advocated  such  separation,  but  were  branded 
as  outrageous  radicals.  All  the  Reformation  Churches,  Luthe- 
ran and  Reformed,  held  it  as  an  axiom,  that  the  State  had, 
under  God,  the  supreme  care  of  religion.  "  Cnjits  Rcgio,  ejus 
Religion  Dissenters  of  England  now  usually  hold  our  views. 
( as  well  as  Seceders  in  Scotland),  called  there  voluntaryism. 
The  Free  Church,  at  the  head  of  whom  was  Dr.  Chalmers,  held 
to  establishments.    Ours  is  the  first  fair  trial. 

Two    theories    of    Church    establishments    prevail    among. 

Establislrments  Justi-  nominal  Protestants.  The  higher  is  that 
fied  by  two  Theories,  squinted  at  briefly  in  Vattel,  bk.  i,  ch.  12,. 
The  Prelatic.  g  J29,  and  more  fully   developed  by  Glad- 

stone, Church  and  State,  Chap.  2.  That  the  government  is 
instituted  for  the  highest  good  of  the  whole  in  every  concern, 
and  is  bound  to  do  all  it  has  in  its  reach  for  this  object,  in  every 
department.  That  a  commonwealth  is  a  moral  person,  having 
a  personality,  judgment,  conscience,  responsibility,  and  is  there- 
fore bound,  as  a  body,  to  recognize  and  obey  the  true  religion. 
Hence  the  State  must  have  its  religion,  as  a  State.  This  is  a 
necessary  duty  of  its  corporate  or  individual  nature.  Hence  it 
must  profess  this,  by  State  acts.  It  must  of  course  have  a 
religious  test  for  office,  because  otherwise  the  religious  char- 
acter of  the  State  would  be  lost ;  and  it  must  use  its  State 
power  to  propagate  this  State  religion. 

Let  us  discuss  the  abstract  grounds  of  this  theory  first ; 
then  take  up  the  second,  or  freer  theory  of  Church  establish- 
ments, and  conclude  with  some  general  historical  views  appli- 
cable to  both  theories. 

Says   Vattel  :  "  If  all  men  are   bound  to  serve  God,  the 
entire    nation    in    her    national    capacity    is- 

Vattel's  View.  doubtless  bound  to  serve  and  honour  Him. 

This  is  based  on  a  general  principle  ;  that  all  men  are  every- 
where bound  by  laws  of  nature ;  and  therefore  the  entire 
nation,  whose  common  will  is  but  the  united  wills  of  all  the 
members,  must  be  bound  by  these  natural  laws ;  because  the 
accident  of- association  cannot  release  men  from  bonds  that  are 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  88 1 

universal."  (See  §  5).  This  is  true  in  a  sense,  but  not  the 
sense  necessary  to  prove  a  state  rehgion  obhgatory.  So  far  as 
any  acts  of  any  associated  body  of  men  have  any  moral  or  re- 
ligious character,  they  should  conform  to  the  same  moral  and 
religious  rules,  by  which  the  individuals  are  bound.  But  (a)  the 
obligation  is  nothing  else  but  the  individual  obligation  of  all  the 
members,  and  nothing  more  is  needed  to  defend  or  sanction  it 
than  their  individual  morality  and  rehgiousness.  And  (b)  there 
are  associations  whose  objects  are  not  directly  religious,  but 
secular.  How  can  they  appropriately  have  a  corporate  religious 
character,  when  their  corporate  character  has  no  direct  refer- 
ence to  religion. 

Gladstone  puts  the  same  argument  substantially,  calling  it 
,  ,,.  his  eihical  argument.     "A  State  is  a  corpo- 

Gladstone  s  View.  ,.  Ti.  i.  t^       •     i  . 

ration.     It  has  personality,  judgment,  reason, 

foresight.  Its  acts  have  moral  character.  The  only  safe  and 
sufficient  basis  of  morals  is  Christianity  ;  therefore  they  should 
have  Christian  character.  All  things  we  do  have  religious  rela- 
tions and  responsibilities ;  therefore  the  acts  of  rulers  as  such, 
should  have  a  Christian  character.  In  a  word,  a  State  is  a 
moral  person,  corporately  regarded,  and  like  any  other  person, 
must  have  its  personal  Christian  character.  Else  it  is  anti- 
Christian,  and  atheistic."  Mr.  Macaulay,  (Ed.  Review,  1839),  so 
terribly  damaged  this  argument,  by  pointing  out  that,  by  this 
reasoning,  it  was  made  the  duty  of  armies,  Banking,  Insurance, 
Gas,  Railroad,  Stage  Coach  companies.  Art  Union,  incorporate 
clubs,  &c.,  &c.,  to  have  a  corporate  religion  (consider  the 
absurdities),  that  in  his  second  edition,  the  author  modified  and 
fortified  it.  "  These  corporations  are  trivial,  partial.  Every- 
body not  bound  to  belong  to  one ;  their  operations  not  far 
reaching,  not  of  divine  appointment,  temporary.  But  there  are 
two  natural  associations  of  men,  alike  in  these  three  fundamen- 
tal traits.  They  are  of  divine  appointment ;  they  are  perpetual, 
they  embrace  everybody,  i.  e.,  every  human  being  is  bound  to 
belong  to  them ;  they  are  the  family  and  the  State.  All  good 
men  admit  that  the  family  ought  to  have  a  family  religion.  The 
State,  a  similar  institution,  a  larger  family,  ought  to  have  a  State- 
religion." 

This  is  the  only  ingenious  and  plausible  thing  in  his  book. 
The  nature  of  the  reasoning  compels  us  to  discuss  the  funda- 
mental questions  as  to  the  constitution  and  objects  of  civil 
society.  For  our  answer  must  take  this  shape.  The  family 
association  is  wholly  dissimilar  from  the  commonwealth ;  because 
its  direct  objects  are  not  the  same.  The  source  and  nature  of 
the  authority  are  not  the  same.  There  is  not  the  same  inferi- 
ority in  the  governed  to  the  governors ;  and  there  is  not  the 
same  affection  and  interest. 

(Remember,  however,  the  fact  that  all  men  are  bound  to 
be  members  of  some  family  and  State,  has  no  relevancy  to 
56* 


882  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

prove  that  these  associations  must  have  religious  corporate 
character,  unhke  aU  other  partial  societies.  Nor  does  the  fact 
that  they  are  not  voluntary,  but  of  divine  appointment ;  because 
under  certain  circumstances,  it  may  be  of  divine  appointment 
that  men  should  belong  to  an  army ;  and  this  does  not  prove 
that  an  army  ought  to  profess  a  religion  as  such). 

The  object  of  the  family  as  to  children,  is  to  promote  their 
,    ^,      ,     whole  welfare.     The  object  of  civil  govern- 

State    and    Church  4.    •        •        i       i-u  i.      i.-  r    ^  1 

have  Different  Ends.       "i^^nt  IS  Simply  the   protection  of  temporal 

rights  against  aggression,  foreign  or  domestic. 
But  this  is  just  the  view  which  all  claimants  for  high  powers  in 
governments  deny.  Like  Mr.  Gladstone,  they  claim  that  the 
proper  view  of  government  is,  that  it  is  an  association  intended 
to  take  in  hand  all  the  interests  and  welfare  of  human  beings, 
of  every  kind  ;  everything  in  which  man  is  interested,  and  in 
which  combination  can  aid  in  success,  is  the  proper  end  of 
human  government.  It  is  to  Uav  :  The  total  human  association. 
Now,  the  plain  answers  to  this  are  three  :  the  Bible  says  the  con- 
trary. Rom.  xiii  :  4.  It  is  utterly  impracticable ;  for,  by  the 
necessary  imperfection  of  human  nature,  an  agency  which  is 
best  adapted  to  one  function  must  be  worst  adapted  to  others ; 
and  an  association  which  should  do  every  thing,  would  be  sure 
to  do  all  in  the  worst  possible  manner.  But  last,  and  chiefly ; 
ii  this  is  true  ;  then  there  cannot  be  any  other  association  of 
human  beings,  except  as  it  is  a  part  and  creature  of  the  State. 
There  is  no  Church.  The  State  is  the  Church,  and  ecclesi- 
astical persons  and  assemblies  are  but  magistrates  engaged  in 
one  part  of  their  functions.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  the 
family,  an  independent,  original  institution  of  divine  appoint- 
ment. The  parent  is  but  the  delegate  of  the  government,  and 
when  he  applies  the  birch  to  the  child,  it  is  in  fact,  by  State 
authority  !  All  combinations,  to  trade,  to  do  banking  business, 
to  teach,  to  preach,  to  navigate,  to  buy  pictures,  to  nurse  the 
sick,  to  mine,  &c.,  &c.,  are  parts  and  creatures  of  the  State  ! 
Or  if  it  be  said  that  the  State,  though  it  has  the  right  to  do 
every  thing,  is  not  bound  to  do  every  thing,  unless  she  finds  it 
convenient  and  advantageous,  then  the  ethical  argument  is 
relinquished  ;  and  the  ground  of  expediency  assumed,  on  which 
we  will  remark  presently.  But  the  ethical  argument  fails,  also, 
(a)  In  this  :  That  it  makes  the  right  and  duty  of  the  Sultan 
to  establish  Mohammedanism ;  the  King  of  Spain,  Popery ; 
Queen  Victoria,  Prelacy  ;  the  E^mperor  of  China,  Boodhism,  &c. 
Julian  was  right  in  ousting  Christians ;  Theodosius,  Platonists, 
Constantius,  Athanasians ;  Jovian,  Arians.  For  if  the  State  is 
a  moral  person,  bound  to  have  and  promote  its  religion,  the 
Sovereign  must  choose  his  religion  conscientiously.  The  one  he 
believes  right,  he  must  enforce.  This  is  admitted  by  the  advo- 
cates. Now,  of  all  the  potentates  on  earth,  there  is  but  one, 
that  would  conscientiously  advocate  what  these  men  think  the 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  .883 

right  religion — Prelacy.  How  sensible  is  that  theory  which,  in 
the  present  state  of  the  world,  would  ensure  the  teaching  of 
-errors,  by  all  the  authority  of  the  governments  over  all  the 
world,  except  in  one  kingdom  ? 

(b)  If  strictly  carried  out,  it  would  ensure  the  worst  govern- 

ing, and  the  worst  preaching,  possible.  An 
on?Unfitfbfother.°^   organization  intended    for    a  particular  end, 

should  choose  agents  best  adapted  to  sub- 
serve that  end,  irrespective  of  other  things.  Otherwise,  it  will 
be  miserably  inefficient.  And  if  it  is  best  organized  for  that 
end,  it  must,  for  that  very  reason,  be  ill  adapted  to  a  different 
end.  Hence,  there  should  be  no  jumbling  of  functions ;  but 
•each  institution  should  be  left  to  subserve  its  own  objects.  Sup- 
pose the  British  Government  act  out  this  theory.  It^iust  say 
to  the  skillful  and  honest  financier :  "  You  shall  not  help  in  my 
treasury,  because  you  do  not  believe  in  Apostolic  Succession  ;" 
to  the  Presbyterian  General :  "  I  will  have  none  of  your  courage 
and  skill  to  release  my  armies  from  probable  destruction,  because 
you  listen  to  a  preacher  who  never  had  a  Prelate's  hand  on  his 
head ;"  to  the  faithful  pilot :  "  You  shall  not  steer  one  of  my 
ships  off  a  lee  shore,  because  you  take  the  communion  sitting," 
&c.  How  absurd;  and  how  utter  the  failure  of  a  government 
thus  conducted ! 

(c)  By  the  same  reason  that  it  is  the  duty,  of  the  State  to 
use  a  part  of  its  power  to  propagate  its  religion,  it  is  its  duty  to 
use  all ;  and  the  doctrine  of  persecution  for  opinion's  sake  is  the 
necessary  inference.    For  the  State  has  power  to  fine,imprison,kill. 

(Before  we  proceed  to  the  more  plausible  and  liberal  theory 
advanced  by  Vattel,  Warburton,  Chalmers, 
Controut  M^t?;.'  '°  &^-  ^^t  US  notice  a  point  urged  by  the  first 
mentioned,  in  §  139,  &c.  :  That  there  must 
•be  a  connection  between  Church  and  State,  in  order  that  the 
Sovereign  may  have  control  over  ecclesiastics  and  religion.  If 
■men  wielding  such  immense  spiritual  influences,  are  not  held  in 
official  subordination  to  the  Chief  Ruler,  he  cannot  govern  the 
■country.  It  would  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  say  that  Vattel  knew 
Church  officers,  chiefly  as  Papists.  Take  away  their  power  of 
the  keys,  their  exemption  from  civil  jurisdiction,  and  their 
ecclesiastical  dependence  on  a  foreign  Pope,  and  the  difficulty 
is  gone.  The  minister  of  religion  should  be  a  citizen,  subject 
to  all  laws,  liable  to  be  punished  for  any  overt  crime  committed 
or  prompted  by  him.  This  is  subordination  enough.  As  for 
th'e  power  still  left  him  to  inculcate  doctrines  of  dangerous  ten- 
dency, unchecked  by  the  State,  the  proper  defence  is  free  dis- 
cussion. The  medicine  of  error  is  not  violent  repression,  but 
light.  Let  the  Ruler  content  himself  with  protecting  and  dif- 
fusing free  discussion.  And  again,  Vattel's  argument  may, 
with  equal  justice,  be  extended  to  political  teachers;  and  then 
the  freedom  of  the  press  and  of  speech  is  gone). 


884  OF  LECTURES  IX  THEOLOGY. 

But  we   come   now  to  what  we   may  call  the  Chalmerian: 

theory.     "  The  proper  object  of  civil  govern- 
Chalmers'  View.  ^    •  >  i  ni.-  -n^^^i 

ment  is  man  s  secular  well-bemg.     But  the 

right  to  prosecute  this,  implies  the  right  to  perform  all  those 
functions  which  are  essential  to  the  main  end — yea,  the  duty. 
Public  morals  are  essential  to  the  public  welfare.  The  only 
source  of  public  morals  is  Christianity.  Christianity  will  not  be 
sufficiently  diffused,  unless  the  State  lends  its  aid  and  means  to 
do  it.  Therefore  it  is  right,  yea,  binding,  that  the  State  shall 
enter  into  an  alliance  with  Christianity  (in  that  form  or  forms 
best  adapted  to  the  end),  to  teach  its  citizens  religion  and  mor- 
als, as  a  necessary  means  for  the  public  good.  To  fail  to  do  so, 
is  for  the  State  to  betray  its  charge." 

The  contested  point  here,  is  in  these  propositions :  That 
"  voluntaryism  "  will  usually  fail  to  diffuse  a  sufficient  degree  of 
public  morals ;  and  that  a  State-endowed  Church,  or  Churches, 
of  good  character  and  spiritual  independence  will  do  it  far  bet- 
ter. And  on  this  point,  all  the  divisions  of  "  Dissent,"  splitting 
up  of  small  communities  until  the  congregations  are  all  too 
small  to  sustain  themselves,  the  insufficiency  of  funds  furnished 
by  voluntary  contribution,  are  urged,  &c.,  &c. 

Now,  here  we  join  issue,  and  assert;  in  the  first  place,  that 
an  endowed  Church,' on  this  plan,  will  usually 
Effiden^'^''™  ^^°''  e^^ct  ^^ss  for  true  religion  and  public  morals, 
than  voluntary  Churches,  notwithstanding 
these  difficulties.  For  remember  that  the  State  is,  in  fact,  and 
must  usually  be,  non-religious ;  i.  e.,  the  Rulers  themselves  will 
usually  have  a  personal  character  irreligious,  carnal,  anti- 
evangelical.  What  is  the  fact?  How  is  the  composition  of 
governments  determined  ?  By  the  sword,  or  by  intrigue,  by 
party  tactics,  by  political  and  forensic  skill,  by  the  demands  of 
secular  interests  and  measures,  by  bribery,  by  riches  and  family,. 
by  everything  else  than  grace.  It  must  be  so ;  for  the  assumed 
necessity  for  a  State  endowment  and  alliance  is  in  the  fact  that 
the  community  is  yet  prevalently  irreligious,  and  needs  to  be 
made  rehgious.  Now,  all  just  government  is  representative. 
It  must  reflect  the  national  character.  To  disfranchise,  and 
shut  out  of  office,  citizens,  because  carnally  minded,  would  be 
an  absurd  and  impracticable  injustice  in  the  present  state  of 
communities.  Now  remember  (Rom.  viii  :  7) :  This  enmity  is 
innate,  instinctive,  spontaneous.  If  the  State  selects  preachers,^ 
some  individual  officers  of  the  State  select  them  ;  and  th&  least 
evangelical  will  most  frequently  be  selected.  Natural  affinities 
of  feeling  will  operate.  Here,  then,  is  one  usual  result  of  a 
Church  establishment ;  that  of  the  men  who  are  nominal  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  endowed,  the  least  evangelical  and  useful 
will  receive  the  best  share  of  all  that  influence,  power  and 
money  which  the  State  bestows.  Exceptions  may  occur :  this 
is  the  general  rule.     What  says  History?    Arians  under  Roman 


OF    LECTURES    IN    THEOLOGY.  885 

Empire;  ander  Teuton  Princes,  High  Church  Arminians; 
worldly  men ;  semi-Papists  in  England ;  Arminians  in  Holland ; 
Moderates  in  Scotland. 

Again :  The  pecuniary  support  will  be  liberal  and  certain. 
^  ^  Its  tenure  will  be  the  favor  of  the  Rulers  ; 
Ease!'^  ^^^^^^  ^  "°^  °^  God's  people.  Hence  carnally  minded 
men  will  infallibly  be  attracted  into  the  min- 
istry by  mercenary  motives :  and  the  most  mercenary  will  be 
the  most  pushing.  Hence  a  progressive  deterioration  of  the 
endowed  ministry,  as  in  English  and  all  Popish  and  Lutheran 
Churches.  Shall  we  be  pointed  to  large  infusion  of  excellent 
men  in  English  and  Scotch  establishments?  We  answer,  that 
their  continuance  is  mainly  due  to  the  wholesome  competition 
of  Dissent.  (Just  the  contrary  of  the  plea,  that  the  Establish- 
ment is  worth  its  cost,  by  its  wholesome  influence  in  curbino" 
Dissent).  And  the  proof  is,  that  wherever  Dissent  has  been 
thoroughly  extinguished,  the  leaden  w^eight  of  State  patronage 
has  in  every  case,  brought  down  the  endowed  clergy  to  the 
■basest  depths  of  mercenary  diaracter,  and  most  utter  ineffic- 
iency for  all  good.     E.  g.,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Austria,  Russia. 

Again  :  Just  as  soon  as  any  Church  is  endowed,  it  is  put  in 

,,  ^ .     an  oppressive  attitude  towards  all  that  part 
Endowment    Unian-       r  .i  «.       -i.         1       j  ^11  ■ 

and  Oppressive.  ^^  ^"^  comifiunity  who  do  not  belong  to  it,  so 

that  prejudice  will  prevent  much  of  useful- 
ness in  its  ministrations  to  them,  and  perpetually  stimulate 
secession.  That  I  should  be  taxed  to  pay  for  the  preaching  of 
doctrines  which  I  do  not  believe  or  approve,  is  of  the  nature  of 
an  oppression.  That  my  minister  should  have  no  lot  nor  part 
in  the  manse  and  salary  provided  at  the  common  expense,  but 
monopolized  by  another  man  who  is  willing  to  endorse  some 
doctrine  which  I  think  erroneous,  is  an  odious  distinction. 
Indeed,  it  might  be  urged,  as  an  independent  argument  against 
the  mildest  form  of  Church  Establishment,  that  it  implies  some 
degree  of  oppression  for  opinion's  sake ;  it  makes  the  State  a 
judge,  where  it  has  no  business  to  judge,  and  exercises  partiality, 
where  there  should  be  equality.  Nor  will  it  at  all  answer  to 
attempt  to  elude  this  difficulty,  as  in  the  colonial  government 
of  Massachusetts  ;  because  this  would  enlist  the  State  in  the  dif- 
fusion of  error  and  truth  alike ;  a  thing  wicked ;  and  it  gives  to 
the  worst  forms  of  nominal  Christianity  a  strength  they  would 
not  otherwise  have,  because  all  the  "  Nothingarians,"  being 
compelled  to  support  some  Church,  elect  the  one  that  has  least 
religion. 

And  once  more :  The  only  fair  experiment  of  full  religious 
liberty,  without  Church  and  State,  that  of  our  country,  proves, 
so  far,  that  the  voluntary  system  is  more  efficient  than  the  en- 
dowed, in  adequately  supplying  the  growing  wants  of  a  nation. 
Let  all  denominations  enjoy  complete  freedom  and  equality, 
and  their  differences  become  practically  less,  they  approximate 


886  SYLLABUS    AND    NOTES 

to  a  virtual  unity  and  peace  on  an  evangelic  ground,  and  their 
emulation  and  zeal  do  far  more  than  the  State  could  do.  The 
fact  is,  that  this  day,  notwithstanding  our  heterogeneous  people, 
and  immense  growth,  we  have  more  gospel,  in  proportion  to  our 
wants,  than  any  except  Scotland.  And  in  England  and  Scot- 
land almost  all  the  enterprise,  which  has  kept  up  with  growth 
and  evangelized  new  districts,  has  been  either  dissenting,  or  a 
sort  of  voluntaryism  among  Established  Church  people  ;  as  in 
getting  up  the  Quoad  Sacra  chapels  in  Scotland.  Our  success 
is  the  grand  argument  against  State  Churches. 

But,   second,  and  more  conclusive.       This   union,   on   this 
The  Endowed  Clergy  theory,  between  Church  and  State,  necessi- 
Must  be.  Responsible  to  tates  the  surrender  of  the  Churches  spiritual 
the  State.  independence.     It  can  no  longer  preserve 

its  allegiance  to  Jesus  Christ  perfect.  The  necessity  of  this 
allegiance  we  will  not  stop  to  prove.  If  the  State  employs  a 
denomination  to  teach  its  subjects  religion  and  morals,  it  is 
bound  to  have  them  well  taught.  The  magistrate  owes  it  to 
his  constituents  to  see  that  the  |Dublic  money  is  well  spent  in 
teaching  what  shall  be  for  the  public  good.  And  whether  the 
doctrine  taught  is  so  or  not,  the  magistrate  must  be  the  sover- 
eign judge  under  God.  In  other  words,  the  preachers  of  this 
State  Church  are,  in  their  ministerial  functions,  State  officials, 
and,  of  course,  should  be  subordinate,  as  to  those  functions,  to 
the  State.  Responsibility  must  bind  back  to  the  source  whence 
the  office  comes.  But  now  where  is  this  minsters's  allegiance 
to  Christ?  Whenever  it  happens  that  the  magistrate  differs. 
from  his  conscience,  he  can  only  retain  his  fidelity  to  his  Master 
by  dissolving  his  State  connection. 

This    was    completely    verified    in    the    disruption    of    the 
Scotch  Establishment.     The  British  crovern- 

Instance    m     Iree  ,  ,•         j'-i-,-  •■        i 

Church  of  Scotland.        Hient      Claimed     jurisdiction     over    spiritual 

affairs,  which  they  supported  by  their  salaries. 
The  faithful  men  of  the  Free  Church  found  that  the  only  way 
to  retain  their  allegiance  to  Christ  was  to  relinguish  their  con- 
nection with  the  State.  When  the  secession  Churches  now  ex- 
claimed :  "  Here  is  an  illustration  of  the  incompatibility  of 
spiritual  independence  and  Church  establishments,"  the  Free 
Church  men  answered  :  "  No.  We  admit  that  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  State  and  its  courts  is  just  as  to  the  temporal  emolu- 
ments of  a  parish,  but  deny  it  as  to  the  care  of  souls,  or  fitness 
for  that  care."  But  does  not  a  suit  about  pay  for  value 
received  necessarily  bring  into  court  the  nature  of  the  value 
received?  Must  not  the  magistrate  who  decides  on  the  quid, 
decide  on  the  pro  quo  ?  The  right  of  the  State  is  to  present  to 
the  Parish,  and  not  to  the  salary  of  the  Parish,  only.  The 
State  has  the  same  right  to  see  the  parochial  duties  performed 
by  whom  she  pleases,  as  the  salary  enjoyed  by  whom  she  pleases.. 
In  the  incipiency  of  the  English  Establishment,  the  grand 


OF  LECTURES  IN  THEOLOGY.  88/ 

appeal  of  its  advocates  was  to  the  example 
no\heScr?cy?"   ^^^^^    ^f  the  Israelitish  kingdom,  where  State  and 

Church  were  united  so  intimately.  Hence 
were  drawn  all  the  arguments,  nearly,  for  the  King's  headship 
over  the  Church.  Hence  Calvin's  idea  of  State  and  Church. 
Nor  is  the  argument  yet  given  up.  But  the  answer  is,  that  a 
theocratic  State  is  no  rule  for  a  State  not  theocratic.  When  a 
State  can  be  shown,  where  there  is  but  one  denomination  to 
choose,  and  that  immediately  organized  by  God  Himself  just 
then ;  where  there  is  an  assurance  of  a  succession  of  inspired 
prophets  to  keep  this  denomination  on  the  right  track  ;  where 
the  king  who  is  to  be  at  the  head  of  this  State  Church  is  super- 
naturaliy  nominated  by  God,  and  guided  in  his  action  by  an 
oracle,  then  we  will  admit  the  application  of  the  case. 

In  conclusion  :  The  application  for  such  an  alliance  does 
not  always  come  from  the  side  of  the  Church.  Commonwealths 
have  sometimes  been  fonder  of  leaning  on  the  Church  than  the 
Church  on  Commonwealths.  Do  not  suppose  that  this  question 
will  never  again  be  practical. 


INDEX. 


A.  Pages. 

Abraham  calling  of '. 449  to  450. 

Abrahamic  covenant,  Extant 781  to  785. 

Abrogation  of  law  disproved 633  to  634. 

Acceptance  involved  in  Justification 624  to  625. 

Acts  of  Divine  Essence  classified 211. 

Acts  mixed  in  moral  quality 668. 

Active  Righteousness  of  Christ  Imputed 625  to  626. 

Adam  a  Representative 304. 

"         had  the  Gospel  after  the  Fall 445  to  449. 

Adam's  Natural  Righteousness 295  to  296. 

"         Concreated  Righteousness 296  to  297. 

"         Pelagian  View  of 296  to  297. 

"         Romish  View  of. 297. 

"         Orthodox  View  of  Proved 297  to  300. 

"         Representation  a  Humane  Plan ^SS- 

Additions  to  Gospel  at  Abraham's  Day 449  to  450. 

"  "  Revelation  at  Sinai 452,  &c. 

Administrator  of  Sacraments 746  to  748. 

Administrator,  Necessity  of  his  Intention 737  to  738. 

Adoption  what.  ? 627 

Adult  Baptism 777  to  778. 

Adultery,  Guilt  of 407  to  408. 

Advent  of  Christ 838'to  840. 

Agency,  God's  in  Acts  of  Free  Agents 286  and  288. 

"  "in  Spiritual  Acts  of  Free  Agents 286. 

Agent  of  Effectual  Calling 560. 

"      of  Sanctification 665. 

Alexander's  Dr.  A.     View  of  Regeneration 570. 

"  "  Definition  of  Saving  Faith 603  to  607. 

Amyraut  Moses.     Scheme  of  Decree 235. 

Angels 264  to  275. 

"      Personality  of. 264* 

"      Existence  of  Reasonable 265. 

"      Date  of  Creation  of 265. 

"      Qualities  of 265  to  266. 

"      Intelligence  of 267. 

"      Power  of 267  to  268. 

"      Orders  of 268. 

"      First  Estate  and  Probation  of 269  to  270. 

"      Occupations  of 270. 

"      Election  of. 230. 

Angels.     Evil 271  to  275. 

"  "  Powers  of 272  to  275. 

Angels  Good  ;     How  concerned  in  Christ's  Redeeming  Work 536. 

Angel  of  Covenant  is  Divine 481. 

Animals  may  be  killed 400  to  401. 

Annihilation,  Atheist'-  best  Hope 62. 

Answers,  several,  to   Justice  of  Imputation 340  to  388. 

Anthropomorphism  of  our  Theology  Lawful 294  to  295. 

"  of  Theistic  Argument  Considered 34  to  35. 

Appendix  I  to  Lecture  23d  on  Geological  Hypothesis 256,  etc. 

"         II  to  Lecture  62 748,  etc. 

Apostolic  Succession  and  Sacramental  Grace 748  to  757. 

Apostasy  of  David,  Peter,  etc.  explained 695. 

A  posteriori  Argument  for  God's  Existence 8  and  13  to  16. 

A  priori  Argument 8  to  9. 

Archangel.     Who 268. 


890  INDEX, 

Arianism 1 76^ 

Arminian  Scheme  of  Predestination 236,  etc^ 

"        Refuted 236  to  238. 

Amiinian  Theories  of  Fall 315  to  316. 

"  "         of  Redemption 579  to  599. 

"  "         of  Justification 631  to  639. 

"  "         of  Defectibility  of  Believers 689  to  690. 

"  "         of  Believers'  Assurance 701  to  710. 

Assurance  of  Grace  and  Salvation 698  to  713. 

"         Distinguished  from  Saving  Faith .' 611. 

"  Popish  Doctrine  of 70X. 

' '         First  Reformers'  Doctrine  of 701. 

"         Not  of  the  Essence  of  Faith 702  to  704. 

"         Arminian  Doctrine  of 701  to  7.10. 

''  Acquirement  of  Feasible 706  to  707. 

"         Agent  and  Means  of 708  to  712. 

"  Effects  of  Holy 712  and  713, 

Atheism  and  Theory  of  Infinite  Series 19  to  22. 

"      is  Despair 62. 

"      is  alw  ays  ephemeral 63  to  64. 

Atomic  Theory  of  Universe 249. 

Attributes  of  God 38  to  53  and  147. 

"  How  related  to  Essence 148. 

"  How  classified 149  to  150. 

"  Given  to  Christ 191. 

Augustine's  Theory  of  Unity  of  Race  in  Imputation 339  to  340. 

Axioms  are  Primitive  Judgments 83,  etc. 

B. 

Baird,  Dr.  S.  J.     Theory  of  Imputation 339  to  340. 

Baptism 758  to  799. 

Of  perpetual   obligation 758  to  760.. 

Meaning  of 759. 

Source  of  in  Jewish  Purifications 759  to  760. 

Does  not  specially  commemorate  Christ's  Burial  and  Resurrection76o  to  763.- 

Nature  of  John's 763. 

Intent  of  Christ's  reception  of 763  to  764. 

Mode  of.    Real  Question  of 764  to  777^ 

Should  suit  all  Climates  and  Ages 768. 

Symbolical  meanings  of 768  to  771.. 

Figurative  cases  of 771  to  773. 

In  Patristic  Churches 775  to  777. 

Is  Purification 773. 

Not  inappropriate  to  Infants 778  to  780. 

Subjects  of 777  to  799. 

Of  Proselytes  and  their  children 789  to  790. 

Of  families  or  Houses 790. 

Of  Infants  in  Primitive   Church 791  to  792. 

Of  Infants,  has  not  corrupted  Church 792  to  794. 

Baptized  Children  ;  How  related  to  Church 794  to  799. 

Baptismal  Regeneration 739  to  745  and  759. 

Bairru,  Ccttt/Cw,    etc 764  to  767. 

Benefits  received  by  Saints  at  Death 820  to  82 1. 

Benevolence  of  God 52  and  169  to  171. 

Benevolence.     Scheme  of  Ethics 100  to  104. 

Bentham,   Jeremy 100  to  104. 

Bible  does  not  teach  Physics 257. 

"     uses  popular  names  of  Phenomena 257. 

Bledsoe,  A.  T.,  LL.  D.     Theory  of  VoHtion 132. 

Blessedness  of  the  Redeemed 849  and  852. 

Blindness  of  Mind  Explained 578  to  579. 

Bondage  of  Old  Testament  exaggerated 458  to  460. 

Bound,  Dr.  N.    On  Sabbath  Obligations 374. 

Brain,  not  Consciousness,  but  Instrument  of 69  to  70. 

Breaking  of  the  Bread,  in  Supper Soo  to  802. 

Breckinridge,  R.  J.,  D.  D.     Argument  for  Existence  of  God 12  to  13. 

Brown.  Dr.  Tho's.      Sentimental  Ethics 1 14  to  116. 

Brutes  :  are  they  Immortal  ? 72. 


INDEX.  °91 

-.       ,1  -  417  to  418. 

Buying  and  Selling,  when  Lawful 

C. 

,     „    ,    ,  554  to  555- 

Call,  common  and  effectual. g    ^^^  ^gg. 

Calvin  on  Lord's  day.    Obligations .'.... 809  to  814. 

"      His  Doctrine  of  Real  Presence r.--:-^ fw;;/'  ca-y. 

Calvinistic  Doctrine  of  New  Birth  consistent  with  Nature  of  ^^lll....  --■-■■^^ 

Capital  Punishments  Lawful 86  to  91. 

Cause,  BeUef  in  Intuitive ] ' 279,  etc. 

Causes,  Natural,  or  Second r  ;;'■ 469. 

Chalcedon.  Decree  of,  on  Hypostatic  Umon .■;■.■.■..■.■■■..■ 35  to  37. 

Chance  no  Cause ••••;, \ 747- 

»  Character  "  not  imprmted  by  Sacraments . .  750  to  757- 

Charisms  of  Holy  Ghost,  what  ? gig. 

Chastisements,  how  explained ."'.'..'.".'.".'.' 268. 

Cherubim,  what  ? ;  ",' ' '  '• "  '1 778. 

Children  of  Impenitent  Baptized,  not  to  be  baptized ...... .^  ■.■.■.:■.■.::;■.*.■...  183,  etc. 

Christ  Divine 485  to  486. 

"       A  true  Priest •  •  •  •  •••;•.•  •  •  • '    " 505. 

' '       Suffered  the  veiy  Penalty  of  His  People ••••••• 1 84,  etc. 

Christ's  Pre-existence ;•  '  r  ••V^"  "y' ..  c^c,  etc. 

"        Own  Declaration  of  Design  in  His  Sacrifice .-^^5^5,  ^^^_ 

"         Humiliation .".'.'.'.'.' 547- 

"         ExaUation _  ■_'_"_ 546  to  547. 

'<         Descent  into  Hades .".'.'.".'.".'.'....  549  to  550- 

"         Intercession • ^       ccq  to  553. 

Kingdom  Mediatorial.. ......  ■ .  625  to  626. 

"         Righteousness  Active  and  Passive 763  to  764. 

"        Baptism  by  John  what  ? .".",".838  to  840. 

"        Second  Advent •  •. 481. 

Offices Three,Prophet,  Priest,  King ••■ ^g^_ 

"         Anoindng,  what,  and  Times '..'.".'.*..  726  to  727. 

Church    Defined "  ] ] ''"' 880  to  887. 

Church-Estabhshments ■ ' " '  ' ' ' 499. 

Circumcision • _'_  '_ 866  to  867. 

Civil  Liberty  what '  ' 862  to  872, 

Civil  Magistrate,  The.. ' 870  to  871. 

Citizen's  Duty,  how  limited  ..,......•■. g  to  lO- 

Clark^  Dr.  S.,  Argument  for  God's  Existence ^     ^^^^ 

Claude  Pajon's  View  of  Regeneration -^  •■•  •■•  '^ ^^g_  ^^^_ 

Commandments  Ten _'  "  '' " ^58  to  360. 

Commandment,  First _■_■■'_' 361  to  363. 

' '  Second, 364. 

"  Third '.!!'..'.'. '.'.'.'366  to  397. 

"  Fourth ■  ■  y 298,  etc- 

"  Fifth ■  ■_■_ '_ '_ 400,  etc. 

"  Sixth _■/  ■_■ 406  to  414. 

"  Seventh •••.• •• ...414. 

Seventh  to  be  preached  with  sanctity .■.■.■.■.■.■.■.■.■.414  to  418. 

<«  Eighth • ■  Y_ '    ^  419  to  426. 

"  Ninth .'.".'.'.' 426  10428. 

«'  Tenth......  •••••••••:•; ' 426  to  427. 

.       ''  Tenth  Divided  by  Papists ^54  to  555. 

Common  Call,  Differs  from  Effectual .■.■.■.■  V.  .■.■.■.555  to  559- 

"     Design  of  God  in 556  to  557. 

"      God  sincere  in . .  c:c;6  to  SS7- 

"      of  Lost  taught  in  bcripture ^^ ^-^ 

"  "      Confirmed  by  analogy '"  "  "  _  _  ^^g_ 

«'  "      Always  conditional •  •  •  •  •  '"''^^^  to  585. 

Common  Sufficient  Grace 816. 

Communion  in  Both  Kinds " 586. 

Concilia  Perfedionis • .■.'.■133  to  136;  308  to  309. 

Concupiscence  is  Sin •  •  •  •  • 286  to  291. 

Concursus,  Turrettin's  Doctrme  of . . . . . .  •••••;•• ' ; ; 435  to  437- 

Conditions  between  Parties,  mCovenant  of  Giace • .  •  •  • ^^^-»^^  ^^^^ 

Conditions  required  ot  man,  in  .  cia. 

Conciition    ^^  1^^^^^^  ^^  ^^^.^^,^  Substitution .■■;.....  589  to  592. 

Conditional  Election  rejected 


-892 


INDEX. 


Conditional  Decree  rejected 212,  etc. 

Conscience. ... 117  to  119. 

Consecration  of  Bread  and  Wine 802. 

Consensus  Populoru7n ' 17. 

Consubstantiation 808. 

Correlation  of  Forces.     Argument  of  Materialists 55  to  56. 

Covenant  of  Works,  gracious 302. 

"         "        "        Defined  and  Proved 303  and  304. 

"         '•        "        Condition  and  Seal  of 304  and  305.- 

"         "        "        Benevolent  in  Plan 336  to  337. 

"         "        "        Is  it  abrogated  ? 635  to  636. 

Covenant  of  Grace ; 429  to  463. 

"         "        "     Same  in  both  Testaments 441  to  443. 

"         "        "     Opinion  of  Socinians  and  Immersionists  on 441  and  442. 

"         "        "     Parties  to  and  Motives  of 434  to  435. 

Covenant,  strictly  what  ? 431. 

"        Is  a  Dispensation  of  Grace  such 431, 

"       of  Grace  and  Covenant  of  Redemption  Discriminated 432  to  434. 

"       of  Redemption  is  the  Decree 430. 

Coveting  is  Sin 308  to  309. 

Creation 247,  etc. 

"     Meaning  of  term  in  Scripture 247  to  248. 

"     was  ex  Nihilo 248. 

"     was  lor  a  Moral  End 263. 

"     of  Man 292,  etc. 

Creationism  (of  Souls).     Doctrine  of 317  to  321. 

Creative  Week,  and  Interpretations  of '. 254  to  255. 

Creatures,  cannot  be  enabled  to  create 251. 

Cup,  belongs  to  beheving  Laity  also S16. 

D. 

Daemons 271  to  275. 

Death  and  'Suffering  always  Penal 301  to  302. 

"      of  Believers 817  to  821. 

"      of  the  Justified,  how  explained 818. 

Decalogue 351,  etc. 

"  A  summary  of  all  Duty 354  to  355. 

"  How  Divided 355. 

•'  Rules  for  interpreting 355  to  356. 

'•  Could  only  be  from  God 427. 

Deception  :  always  Sinful  ? 424  to  426. 

Decree  of  God 211,  etc. 

"         '     "  Proved 211  to  212. 

"        "     "  Is  it  essentially  in  God  ? 212  to  213. 

"        "     "  Effective  and  Peimissive 213  and  214. 

"        "     "  Properties    of 214  and  220. 

"        '•     "  Objections  against 220  to  223. 

Decrees  Prohibited  for  Marriage 412  to  414. 

Demoniacal  Possessions 273  to  274. 

De  Moor  on  Imputation 357. 

Depravity  Total 323,  etc. 

"  "     Proved 324  to  328. 

Desert  of  All  Sin 427  to  429. 

Design  of  Christ's  Sacrifice  Inferred  from  actual  Results 528,  529. 

"  "  "  To  be  explained  by  motives  of  Div.  volition  of  529  to  533. 

"  "  "  As  explained  by  Christ  Himself,  Jno.  iii :  16-20 535. 

Cl^iadrjKi],  what  ? 431  to  432. 

Dick,  Dr.  Views  of  Regeneration 569  to  570. 

Differences  of  Old  and  New  Testaments 452  to  462. 

Discipline  of  Baptized  Children 795  to  799. 

Dispensations  of  Covenant  only  Two.     Why  ? 444  to  445. 

"  of  1st  Covenant.     How  subdivided  ? 445  to  449. 

"  of  Covenant  of  Grace 442  to  453. 

Disposition  regulative  of  Will 130,  etc.,  594,  etc. 

Divinity  of  Christ,  Ar  ,ued  under  5  heads 183,  etc. 

"        "        "      In  Old  Testament 1S5,  etc. 

"        "        "      of  Holy  Ghost 197,  etc. 

Divorce,  Doctrine  of  in  both  Testaments 40S  to  410. 


INDEX. 


893 


360. 

Aor?.f  m  of  Papists .  ^q^  ^q  406. 

Duelling  is  Murder ......  . . ....  .  •  • ■.■.■.■.■.■.'.'.  V. . .  854  to  861. 

Duration  of  Punishment  of  Wicked .!....  54. 

Duties  deduced  from  Natural  Theology ^^ 

E. 

692. 

Earnest  of  Holy  Ghost /  V" " ' '  / '^'r.1. -^^8  t<i  339. 

Edwards,  Jonathan.     View  of  ImP"tat^°" ; ; ;■.;...  100  to  104. 

His  Theory  of  Vutue -^i-:.  to  "i-" 

Effects  of  first  Sin  on  Adam... *;;  " ';:VpVaai;n^ ! '.  .".■.314  to  315'. 

»        "   on  his  Posterity,  according  to  Pelagian* -i  c  to  "^16 

u  "        "   according  to  Arminians •:>  ->      ^^^' 

"        "   according  to  Wesleyans V.A'to"^!?" 

"   according  to  Orthodox '.....   Ah- 

Effective  Decree .'.".".'553  to  579. 

Effectual  Calling •••• 560  to  561. 

"     Agent  and  Instrument  ot 3  ^. 

"     Orthodox  and  Pelagian  Views  of •  •  •  •-  ^     ' 

"     is  by  Almighty  Grace  ._. ^6q  to  ^70. 

"     By  Mediate,  or  Immediate   grace 509  Jo  b/V^ 

Efficacy  of  Sacraments  what? '^^-^    ^^  ^jg^ 

Efficiency  of  all  God's  Decrees .     g^j  ^^  gQ2. 

Elements  in  Sacraments,  why  chosen  ! /  y'     ^  ^34,  etc. 

Election  Defined,  and  Proved .' ."  ! '. . .  230  to  231,  etc. 

of  angels,  Like  and  Unhke  Man  s ^J  •>  'ggg_ 

Equahty  of  men,   Natural,  what  ? •  •  •   •  • '  * "  *  *_ " ' " "  *_  jy^'_ 

Essence  Defined _. ■//_ 205,  etc. 

Eternal  Generation  of  Son ....  4C0  to  451.. 

Eternal  Life  held  out  to  Patriarchs ■.'.■.'.■.'.".'. 38  and  152. 

Eternity  of  God _' ' 215. 

"        of  Decree ; ..  16  to  17. 

Ethical  argument  for  God's  existence ".....  96  to  1 16. 

"      Theories  discussed £,g  j^^  ^(,g_ 

Eutychian  View  of  Christ's  Person •  _  _  _  ^.^^  ^^^^ 

Evangehcal  Repentance 854  to  862. 

Everlasting  Punishments 423. 

Evil  Speaking,  Sin  of . . . . " 26  to  38. 

Evolution,  modem,  rejected • ^^^^  g^c. 

Exaltation  of  Christ _■_■■_■  _'_  _  _  ggg  to  687. 

Example  of  Christ .^ [ 518,  etc. 

"  Extent  of  Atonement  " .••••••  "  "■•t;  i' ■■„■*' !;i9. 

"  Theories  of  semi-Pelagians 3  ^^ 

(t  ««  of  Wesleyans ^^T 

of  Amyraut,   e;c ;:::.".:  .■.'520  ;nd523.- 

of  Orthodox di7  to  418 

Extortion,  Sins  of  Against  Eighth  commandment 't  / 


Faith.  Temporary,  Historical,  of  Miracles,  Saving •  •  •  •        _   _  5^1  _ 

Christ  the  object  of  Saving .  602  to  603.- 

Faith  Saving,  must  be  explicit •  •  •  •  •  • ^      ^    5o-, 

"        A  complex  of  Intelligence  and  W ill J  ''_ 

"        Result  of  New  Birth -.q 

"        What ;  if  grace  only  Mediate •  •  •  ' ' "  g^ 

Embraces  Christ  in  all  offices ^      ^^-^^ 

u  "        Instrument  of  Union  to  Christ ^^^ 

"       Why  suitable  Organ  of  Justification ••••-     g_ 

"  "        Only  organ  of  Justification ^^       ^ 

'<       How  Imputed  for  Righteousness ■.■■  ■•^-  ■-  -  --^  ^-'^^; 

Faith,  implicit  of  Papists ".".'.',... i?!- 

Faithfulness  of  God .........'. 306,  etc. 

Fall  of  Man '.'.'.'.'.' 789  to  790. 

Family   Baptisms •  •;•••• 213.- 

Fate,  what  ?  Unlike  Decree  in  what  .' ■  •  • gjp^ 

Fides  Formata •••••. yjl  to  773. 

Figurative  Baptisms  point  to  Attusion • 93  to  94. 

Final  Cause,  Doctrine  of •  • . .  • _  _  ^^jq,  etc. 

First  Sin  of  Man.      1st  Element  what 


894  INDEX. 

"      "  "         How  possible  in  a  Holy  Will  ? 311  to  312. 

"      "  "         Effects  of,  on  Adam  and  Posterity 312  to  314. 

"      "  "         Different  Theories   of 314  to  317. 

Five  Points  and  their  Logical  Source 580. 

FoiTnula  of  Baptism 761  to  762. 

"         of  Covenant  of  Grace , 437. 

Fossils.     Do  not  detennine  Palasontology 292. 

Free  agency,  Defined  and  Established 120  to  122. 

Freedom 129. 

Fruits  meet  for  Repentance ,  660. 

G. 

General  Judgment 842  to  849. 

Getieration  of  Son,  opinions  on 205,  etc. 

"  "      Socinian,    Arian,  Andover  view  of 206  to  207. 

'•  "      Orthodox  view  proved 207  to  210. 

Geologists  should  take  Burden  of  Proof 258  to  259. 

Geology  as  related  to  Gen.  i 252,  etc. 

"  "  "         Two  schemes  for  Reconciling 253  to  255. 

Geologic  cosmogonies  must   concern  Theology 256. 

"  "  Clash   with  Westminster  Confession 256. 

"  "  To  be  treated  with  caution 257. 

Geologic  Hypotheses  Logic  of 259. 

"  "         Invalid  as  against  God 259  to  263. 

Glory  of  God  his  Chief  End 489  to  490, 

Gnostic  view  of  Christ's  Person 467. 

God.     Is  He  cause  of  Sins  ? 290  to  291. 

God.     How  glorified  in  Christ's  Sacrifice 536  to  538. 

God.     Is  He  only  vera  causa  ? 280,  etc. 

God's  agency  in  Acts  of  Free  Agents 286,  etc. 

Goodness  of  God 1 70. 

Good  Works 660  to  686. 

Good  works  must  have  what  Traits  ? 677  to  678. 

Governmental  scheme  of  Atonement i 508  to  509. 

Grace  in  Regeneration  Invincible 585  to  586. 

Grace,  and  Graces  \Vliat  ? 170  to  172. 

"  Grahamites  "  anti-scriptural 401. 

"  Great  Commission  " 778  to  779. 

•Guilt  Defined,  Potential,  Actual 310  and  517. 

H. 

Hades,  Doctrine  of 823  to  824. 

Hardening  of  Sinners,  What  ? 243. 

Heathen  not  Salvable,  while  such 587. 

Heaven 849,  etc. 

""  Higher  Christian  Life  " 672  to  673. 

"  Higher  Law."      True  Doctrine  of 868  to  870. 

Historical  Faith 600  and  606. 

Hobbes  Thomas.  Selfish  System 97  to  99. 

Hohness  of  God 172  to  173. 

Holy  Ghost.     PersonaHty  and  Divinity  of 193  to  197. 

'Oiioovaiov  To 17c. 

Houses  Baptized  by  apostles 789  to  790. 

Howe,  Rev.  J's.,  Argument  for  God's  Existence 10. 

Hume  David.  Utilitarian  Ethics 99  to  100. 

"  "  Theory    of  Causation 87  to  90. 

Humiliation  of  Christ 546  to  547. 

Hutcheson's  "  Moral  Sense  " 113. 

Huxley,  Dr.  Th.  "  Physical  Basis  of  Life  " 58,  etc. 

Hybrids  refute  Evolution 30. 

Hypostatic  Union 466  to  47c. 

"  "    Views  of  Gnostics,  Nestorians,  Eutychians  and  Chalce- 

don,  on 467  to  469. 

"  "    Socinian  Cavils  against 469  to  470. 

Hypothetic  Universalists 235,  etc. 


INDEX. 


895 


Idealist,  his  Pantheism - ^  84°e1c' 

Identity  Intuitive • 8-710856 

;'        of  Resurrection  Body.. • .'. ••.:'. ■..'.■■.:'.■..■.■  361  and  363' 

Idolatry  of  Images,  What  ? J  -^^g 

'•        Corrupting ••■.'.■.  ■.■.■.'.  ■.■.■.■.■36V  and  363'. 

Image-Worship  of  Papists : ' '  *  V  "t; ' -6^ 

*.  "  "       same  as  that  of  Pagans ......^03. 

Image  of  God  in  man,  what  ? ^^^6;  "e^tc" 

Immateriality  of  Soul  proved fie  to  66* 

<•  "     Given  in  Consciousness "i  "■"  "y- 

Immediate  Imputation.     Histoiy  of 340   o  34  . 

"        •      Criticized ■'^    ^  ^ tx 

r^    J  44,  4:;  and  152. 

Immensity  of  God . .  760  to  764. 

Immersionist's  Dogma 77a  to  77; 

"      Unchurches  all  others 64  to  74 

Immortahty  and  Immateriality  of  Soul 7^ '  etc  "  821°  etc 

1         \-v.^Tr^:^ ■.■.■.■.■.".■.■.■.■.■.■.45tol52and:i53! 

Immutabihty  of  God ^^        -^      ^^  ^^2 

Impeccability  of  Christ   •  ..■.•.  •  •  •  • -^  •  -  -^^^  ^^^  ^ 

Imphcit  Faith  of  Papists ^-i^        '*  '     ,28  to  ^^i 

Imputation.     Defined  and  Proved -^,1  and  "^"^2 

In  Rom.  v:  12-19 %\\Zd\i 

Objections  to 333  an^  335. 

Mediate,  rejected "■^loto  W- 

Not  unjust cic  to  ;i8 

Imputation  of  our  Guilt  to  Christ •  • 6do  to  642 

^  "  of  Christ's  Righteousness.    Basis  of. . . . .  ... .  .  •  -. 040  to  042. 

u  ^  "        Arguments  and  Objections 642  to  043. 

Inability  Defined.     "  Moral  and  Natural." .■■■.■.'.■. *4V2  and  414! 

Incest.     Sin  of J27  to  128. 

Inducement  not  Motive qi  to  93. 

Inductive  Demonstration  what  ? ^       ^g^_ 

Indulgences,  theory  of. ['.'.'..'.'.'.  ."792' to  799'. 

Infants.     How  related  to  Church '^         '^^_ 

Infants  addressed  as  members '77'7'to  799'. 

Infant-Baptism......  ••••••• '.!  .".'.'."781  to  785. 

"       Membership.     Proved ' '    ^_ 

Infants,  corruption  of ; !.'!!.'.'".'.  173. 

Infinitude  of  God '  * ' '  '/y'g  Vo  81, 

Innate  Ideas y,^  to  y -^g. 

Intention  in  Sacraments ..'.'.'.'  549  to  550. 

Intercession  of  Christ caq  to  <^'^o. 

"     Objects  and  Duration  of !8J-to824! 

Intermediate  State - 1;^  to  356. 

Interpretations  of  Decalogue ^■'^    jj'^j^ 

Intuitions  of  the  Mind • ''  ' ' '  g-  ^^  ^55^ 

Invincible  Grace i ,  e 

Involuntary  States.    Meaning  of 

J. 

^     ,.-     ^.  620  to  630. 

James'  Ep.  11  :  12-26,  on  Justification ^       j^g_ 

Jehovah,  the  Incommunicable  Name 46t;'to  466*. 

Jesus,  the  Mediator  of  Old  Testament .'.'"'..'.".".  470  to  472. 

"       Immpeccable "_ y5o_ 

John's  Baptisms  What  ? YjV  ^nd  1 14. 

Jouffroy.  Theory  of  Ethics ^  ^ 8_^5, 

Judge.     Christ  the _•_•_•;_ '  V  and  96. 

Judgments,  all  valid  are  Intuitive ; . .  96,  etc. 

Judgments — moral. .'.!...  83,  etc. 

Judgments,  primitive  of  Reason V.  842  to'849. 

Judgment,  General r-^'\'"f .'.!'.".  842  to  848. 

Proofs  of.  Purposes  of.  Rule  of .S44to848, 

"  Time  of.     Embraces  whom  .' .  .  .T. . .  S49. 

"  How  related  to  Works  ? 165'to  169. 

Justice  of  God,  Primitive  Proved 


896 


INDEX. 


J- 


Justification.     Doctrine  and  Definition  of 618,  etc- 

"  Importance  of  Doctrine  of 618  and  619. 

Justification  is  as  its  Ground 619. 

"  Etymology  of  Word 619  and  620. 

"  Rome's  Definition  of. 620  and  621. 

"  It  is  a  forensic  Act 620. 

"  Not  by  Works 622  to  624,  628  to  629. 

"       ■  Includes  Pardon  and  Acceptance 624. 

"  (  nly  for  Christ's  Righteousness 639  and  640. 

"  Not  a  lowering  of  Law  to  our  weakness 631. 

',  Complete  in  all   Behevers .^ 643  to  644. 

'*  How  related  to  future  Sins,  and  Judgment-Day  . .' 644  to  645. 

"  Does  not  favour  moral  License  or  Antinomian  Inference. .  .648  and 650. 

K. 

Kant's  Cavil  against  A  posteriori  Argument  for  God's  existence 11. 

Kingdom  of  Christ  the  Mediator 55°  to  553. 

■'<  "      Nature,  Duration  and  End  of 550  to  553. 

Knowledge  of  God 49;  etc.,  155,  etc. 

'?  "  Relative,  and  yet  Free 158  to  159. 

"  "  Intuitive 50. 

'•  "  Divided  into  Simple   and  Free 154. 

L. 

Aarpeia   of  Papists 360. 

Law— Natural,  What 278  to  283. 

"    of  Reproduction 324,  325.  33°  and  331, 

"    of  God 351.  etc. 

"  "  Uses  of  Under  Gospel 353  and  354. 

"  "  Cannot  be  abrogated 633  to  634. 

Layiug  on  Apostles'  Hands  to  convey  Holy  Ghost,  what  ? 750  to  757. 

Leavened  Bread  in  Supper 801. 

Legal  Repentance 653  to  654. 

Lewis,  Prof.  Tayler.     Symbolic  Days 254  and  255. 

Liberty,  what 872  to  882. 

Liberty  of  Conscience 873  to  880. 

Limbus  Patrum,  denied 462. 

Aoyor,  the • 204  and  205. 

Lord's  day,  Why  so  called 393. 

"  Is  the  Christian-Sabbath 390  to  397. 

"  Proved  by  Abrogation  of  Seventh  Day 390. 

"  By  Precedent  at  Pentecost  = 391  to  392. 

"  At  Troas.  Acts  xx  :  7 392  and  393. 

"  In  I  Cor.  xvi  :  i,  2 393. 

"  By  John  in  Patmos 393  and  394. 

Lord's  Supper,  Expresses  Union  to  Christ 616  and  617. 

"  "       Defined  and  Discussed 800  to  817. 

"  "       Histoiy  of  Institution Soi. 

"  "       Elements,  Consecration  of 801  and  802. 

"  "       Sacramental  Acts  in 802  to  803. 

"  "       Who  may  partake  of 803  and  804. 

"  "       Perverted  by  dogmas  ofCorporeal  Presence  and  sacrifice  in S04. 

Lutheran,  Old,  View  of  Sabbath 368  and  370, 

M. 

MacCosh,    Dr.  J.     Theory  of  the  Will 131  and  132. 

Man.     His  First  estate  Holy 292,  etc. 

Man's  Likeness  to  God,  what  ? 293  to  294. 

Materialism  Considered 55  to  63. 

Matter  and  Form  in  Sacraments   729  to  730. 

Means  of  Sanctification 665. 

Mediate  Theory  of  Regeneration 569  to  579. 

Mediation  of  Angels  and  Saints  refuted  ;  in  Col.  ii 480. 

"  of  Christ  in  both  Natures 473. 

Mediator  Defined 464^ 


INDEX.  897 

M. 

Mediator  of  the  Covenant 464  to  484. 

"        Must  be  Man,  Must  be  God 475." 

"         Only  one — ,1  Tim.  ii :  4,  5 481, 

Mental   Disease,  What  ? '. .  71.* 

Merit,  what  ?     No  Creature  has  it 301  and  679. 

Merit,  Congruous  and  Condign 680  to  681. 

"      Hypothetical 680. 

"      Under  Covenant  of  Works 683. 

Michael,    who  ? 268. 

Middle  Scheme  of  Atonement 507  to  508. 

Middleton,  Dr.  C.  on  Greek  article igo  to  191. 

jVIill,  J.  Stuart.     Theory  of  Causation 90  and  91. 

Miller,  Hugh.     Theory  of  Creative  Days 254  and  255. 

Miracles,  how  differing  froni  nat.  providence 282  and  283. 

Mode  of  Baptism , 764  and  777. 

"  "      In  New  Testament 773  and  774. 

Monad,  mind  a 66,  67  and  7 1 . 

Monads  have  intrinsic  Continuity  of  Existence 279. 

Moral  Judgments  Intuitive 1 1 1. 

*•  "  like  Logical,  that  some  are  derived 112. 


are  Rational, 


113. 

Moral  Agency,  how  constituted 119. 

Moral  Distinctions  Intrinsic 352  and  353. 

"  Moral  Inability  " 597. 

Moral  Opinions,  however  intellectual,  are  echoes  of  W'ill 573  and  574. 

Morbid  Suggestions,  how  used  by  Evil  Spirits 275. 

Moses'  Dispensation,  same  as  Abraham's 454  and  457. 

Motive  Defined 127,  128  and  592. 

Motive  of  God  may  be  complex 529  and  531. 

"  "     not  executed  may  be  expressed 531  and  532. 

MuUer,  Dr.  Julius.     Theory  of  Sin 307  to  309, 

Murder,  Enormous  guilt  of 400. 

Mystical  Union,  what  ? 613  and  614. 

N. 

Names,  Descriptive  of  God '. 145. 

"       of  God  given  to  Christ 189. 

Natural  liberty  and  equality  of  man 867  and  868. 

"       relation  of  creature  to  God 300. 

"       Selection  considered 28  to  30. 

"      Theology  a  true  Science 6. 

"       Theology  inadequate  for  Salvation 75  to  77. 

' '       Theology  has  uses 77  to  78. 

Nature  and  the  Supernatural 280  and  283. 

Neander's  Erroneous  view  of  Sabbath 386,  etc. 

Necessary  Truths   what  ? 84  and  85. 

Necessitarians,  Scnsuahstic  and  Theolog 121. 

Necessity  of  Expiation  main  Doctrine  revealed  to  first  Sinners 445,  etc. 

"  '  Defined  and  Argued 486,  etc. 

"  "         Not  physical 487. 

"  "  Socinian  objections  to 488. 

"  "         Argued  from  God's  perfections 490. 

"  "  "  "     Sacrifices.; 491  and  511. 

"  "  "  '•     Nature  and  End  of  Penalties 492. 

"  "  "■         "     Conscience 495  to  497. 

"  "  "  "     Immutability  of  Law 497. 

"  "  "  "     God's  Rectoral  Justice 498. 

"  "  "  "     Socinian's  admissions 499. 

Necessity  of  Sacraments 744  to  746. 

Nestorian  view  of  Christ's  person 467  to  468. 

O. 

Oaths  what  ?     Sometimes  lawful 364. 

Objections  to  Vicarious  Satisfaction 513  and  518. 

"  of  Hume  to  Teleologic  Argument 17  to  19 

♦'  to  Reasonableness  of  Prayer 717  to  719 


098  INDEX. 

O. 

Objections  to  Predestination 243  to  246. 

Objective  World  intuitively  known 86. 

Obligation,  moral.... 117. 

Offices  of  Son  and  Spirit  in  Redemption  prove  their  Divinity 199  to  201. 

Old  Testament  a  Gospel-Dispensation 457  to  462. 

"  "         Saints  glorified  at  Death 462. 

Omnipotence  of  God 46,  47,  159  and  160. 

"  "  Does  not  work  contradictories 161. 

Omnipresence  of  God 152. 

Omniscience  of  God 49  and  1 55. 

Optimist  Theory 53  and  54. 

Opiis  operattim.     Doctrine  of 739  and  744. 

Order  of  Repentance  and  Faith 655  to  658.- 

Origin  of  Souls 317  and  321. 

Original  Sin,  Defined 306,  etc.,  321  to  322  and  332,  etc. 

"  "    Not  a  corruption  of  Substance 322  and  323. 

"  "    Objections  to,  from  Scripture,  etc 2>7)3  ^'""^l  Z^- 

"  "    The  Cardinal  Doctrine 350  and  351. 

"  "    Doctrine  of  proved 324,  etc. 

Osiander,  Andrew's  view  of  Imputed  Righteousness 626  and  627. 


Paley's  moral  system 107  to  1 10. 

Pantheism — rejected 22  to  26. 

Pardon  of  Sin,  not  taught  by  Reason 75  and  76. 

Pa,pists  deny  assurance  of  Grace  and  Salvation 701 . 

Parents  in  Fifth  Commandment 398  and  399, 

Participants  proper  in  Lord's  Supper 803  to  804. 

Particular  Redemption,    Proved 520  to  523. 

"  "  objected  to  from  Univ.  offer 523  to  524. 

"  "  From  Texts  seeming  to  design  pardon  to  All. .  .524  and  525. 

"  "  Defended  against  these 525  and  528. 

Parties,  Orig.  to  Covenant  of  Redemption 434. 

Pascal    quoted 575. 

Passive  Obedience  and  Non-resistance 868  and  872. 

Passivity  of  Soul  in  quickening 586  and  587. 

Passover ^ 454 . 

Patripassians 1 75  to  178. 

Paul,  Col.  i  :  24,  no  Mediator 482. 

Peace-party  in  America 403  to  404. 

Pelagianism 296,  etc  314  to  316. 

Penalty  not  primarily  benevolent 492  and  495. 

"       True  nature  of 496  and  497. 

Perfectionism  Discussed 667  to  672. 

Perjuiy.     Sin  of 364. 

Permissive  Decree 213  and  214. 

Persecution,  Claim  of 873  to  880. 

Perseverance  of  Saints,  Defined  and  Proved 687  to  698. 

"  "      Effects  of  Doctrine  good 697  to  698. 

Person.     Defined 174  and  175. 

Personal  Distinctions  in  Trinity 202. 

"         Properties,  Relations  and  Order 202  to  210. 

Personality  of  Holy  Ghost 194  to  196. 

Physical  Test  of  Prayer 720. 

Pity  of  God  for  Lost.     How  consistent  with  His  Sovereignty  in  their  case..  532.  etc. 

Place  of  the  Saints'  final  blessedness 850  and  852. 

Platonic  scheme  of  Universe II  and  12,  249,  etc. 

l^lymouth  P.relhren.    Doctrine  of  Sanctification 675  to  677. 

"  "  Doctrine  of  Prayer 721  to  724. 

"  "  View  of  Assurance 708  and  709. 

Polygamy  in  Old  Testament .410  to  412. 

Popisli  theory  of  Faith ♦ ; 142. 

Popish  Sacraments  seven 732  to  734. 

Possessions  of  D.Temons 273  to  274. 

Powers  of  Bad  Angels :    272  to  273. 


INDEX. 


P. 


899 


Prayer.     Definit.  and  object  of. 713  to  714. 

"  Obligatory 714  to  717. 

"  Reasonable. 717  to  719. 

"  Rule  and   Model  of 720  to  721. 

"  Extent  of  Warrant  for 721  to  724. 

"  Social  and  Secret 724  and  725. 

Pre-Adventists'  Doctrine  stated 838  to  840. 

Preceptive  law  vicariously  kept  by  Christ 625  and  626. 

Pre-damnation 239. 

Predestination,  Defined  and  Proved 224  to  227. 

"  objected  to  as  partial,  etc 243,  etc. 

"  Is  personal 225  and  226. 

"  Is  taught,  Rom.  ix 226  to  227. 

"  Properties  of.     Objections  to 228,  etc. 

"  Amyraut's  Scheme  of 235  and  236. 

"  Arminian  "  336. 

"  How  to  be  taught 246,  etc. 

Pre-existence  of  Christ 184  to  188. 

Pretention.     Grounded  in  Foreseen  Sin 238,  etc.,  240,  etc, 

Prevalence  of  Infant  Baptism  in  Primitive  Church 791  and  792. 

Priesthood  of  Christ  :  real 485.  486  and  550. 

Primitive  Church  had  Infant  Baptism 791  to  792. 

Primitive  Judgments 83,  etc. 

Private  Communions 816. 

Private  Judgment,  Right  of 871  to  873. 

Probation,  always  Temporary 305. 

Procession  of  Holy  Ghost 197  to  199. 

Promise  in  Fifth  Commandment 399  to  400. 

Proof  of  Geologic  Hypothesis  Circumstantial,  and  inferior  to  eye-witness. 259  to  261. 

"        Illustrated  by  Nebular  Hypothesis 262,  etc. 

Property  and  Possession  Whence  ? 415  to  416. 

Prophetic  Work  of  Christ,  essential 475  to  477. 

"  "  "      Its  nature  and  means 484. 

Proselyte  Baptism 789  to  790. 

Protestant  faith  not  Rationalistic . . . ._ 143. 

Protevaiigelinm  in  Gen.  iii  :  15 447  to  448. 

Providence,  Definitions  of 276  to  291. 

"  Epicurean,  Rationalist,  Schemes  of 276,  etc. 

"  Pantheistic,  Christian  Schemes 276. 

"  must  be  Special  to  be  General 277. 

"  Proved,  from  God's  Perfections,  Scripture,  etc 283  to  285. 

"  Objections  to,  answered 285,  etc. 

Providential  Sustentation,  What  ? 278  to  283. 

Psychology,  Some  necessary  in  Theolog}' 78  to  79. 

Punishments,  Capital  lawful 401  to  402. 

Punitive  Justice  Essential  in  God 166  to  169. 

Purgatory.     Doctrine  of.     History  of 539  to  540. 

■ '  Argued  for,  from  Scripture 540  to  541 . 

•'  "        from  venial  Sins 541  to  542. 

"  "        for  from  afflictions  of  Justified  in  earth 543  to  545. 

"  Refuted 543  to  545. 

Purgatorial  Ideas  in  all  false  Creeds 538. 

R. 

Ransom,  What  ? 505. 

Rationale  of  Trinity  attempted 180. 

Rationalism 138. 

Real  Presence 804  to  814. 

"  "       Calvin's  and  Westminster  views  of 809  to  814. 

Reason  in  Religion 138,  etc. 

Reason  and  Understanding  One 95. 

Reasonableness  of  Prayer 7 1 7  to  720. 

Reconciliation  of  Genesis  and  Geology 253.  256.  etp. 

Rectitude  of  God — argued  from  analogy 50  and  51. 

"  "  "         "       Conscience 5'- 


9CX)  INDEX. 


R. 


Redemption  by  a  Substitute  foreshadowed 500. 

Reformed  Divines  :  doctrine  of  assurance 701. 

Regeneration.     Pelagian  and  semi-pelagian 561  and  562.. 

"  is  by  Almighty  Grace 562  and  569. 

"  is  by  Immediate  Power 569  to  579, 


is  not  violative  of  Will . 


59« 


Religious  Liberty- 873  and  880, 

Repentance  Discussed 651  to  660, 

"  Distinguished  from  iie-afie?.£ia 652. 

"  "  Into  Legal  and  Evangelical 653  to  654. 

"  Result  of  New  Birth 655. 

"  How  related  to  Faith 655  to  655. 

"  No  Satisfaction  for  guilt 659 

"  Produces  meet  Fruits 660. 

Repentance  essential,  but  not  organ  of  Justification 646. 

Reprobation 238,  etc. 

Reproduction,  Law  of,  not  whole  of  original  Sin 330  and  331, 

Responsibility  of  Man  for  his  beliefs 136  and  138. 

Restorationism  Discussed 852  to  862. 

Results  of  Christ's  Sacrifice  in  general 536  and  538, 

Resurrection  of  Christ 547  to  549. 

"  of  man, 829  to  841, 

"  not  proved  by  Nat.  Theology 74. 

"  Ancient  Heathen  ideas  of 829. 

"  Jewish  Beliefs  touching 830. 

"  proved  only  by  Scripture 831  to  834. 

"  bodies,  what  ? 832  to  836. 

Date  of 837  to  841. 

"  of  Wicked 837. 

Revealed  Theology 144. 

Revealed  Will 161. 

Revelation  and  Reason 141,  etc. 

Reward  of  Believers  how  given 683, 

Right  of  Revolution 87 1  and  872. 

Righteousness  of  Adam's  nature 253  to  296. 

"  "  "     Pelagian  view  of 296  to  297. 

''    >  "  "     Romish  "      297. 

"  "  "     Orthodox      "     proved 297,  etc. 

Romish  Doctrine  of  Creature  mediation 477,  etc. 

"        Theory  of  Justification 619  to  622. 

S. 

Sabbath  a  Type  ? ...388. 

"        To  be  observed  with  Jewish  Rigor  ? '. 384. 

"        Discussed 366  to  397. 

"        Two  opinions  of  Obligations  of 367  to  368. 

"        Papal,  Lutheran,  Socinian,   Angelican  and  Arminian  views  of. .  .368  to  374 

"        Calvin's  views   of 372  to  373 

"        profaned  by  European  Protestants 373,  etc 

"        Command  moral,  because  original 372  to  379 

•'  "  Not  Revoked   in  New  Test,  as  Matt,  xil  :  1-8  ;  Col. 

ii :  16,  17,  etc 380  to  390. 

"        now  Lord's  day 390  to  397 

"        observance.  Practical  argument  for 396  to  397- 

Sabellianism , 176. 

Sacraments  in  general 726  to  757 

"         Definition  and  Relation  to  Church 726  and  727- 

"         Parts  of 730 

"         Seals  as  well  as  signs 728  and  729 

"         Only   Two 732  to  734, 

"         of  Old  Testament 734  to  736, 

"         Intention  of  ofiiciator,  in 737  to  739, 

"  Opus  Operatnm  claimed 739  to  744 

'•         Not  necessary  to  Salvation 744  to  746 

*'         Who  may  administer .j 746  to  74S 

"         Imprint  no  indelible  character 747 


INDEX.  901 

S. 

Sacrifice  pretended  in  Supper 814  to  817. 

Saints  will  be  judged 847. 

Saint-Worship  of  Papists 359  to  360. 

Sanctification 660  to  686. 

"  Various  meanings  of 661. 

' '  Extent  of.     Progressive 662  to  663  and  674,  etc. 

"  How  related  to  New  Birth.     To  Justification 662  to  663. 

' '  Means  of.  Agent 665  to  666. 

"  Never  perfect  in  this  Life 667  to  672. 

"  Completed  at  Death 820  to  821. 

Satan,  Adam's  Tempter 313  and  314. 

"       A  person 271. 

"       His  warfare  with  Christ 271  to  272. 

Satisfaction  for  Guilt  Necessary 486  to  500, 

"  First  Doctrine  revealed  to  Sinners 445. 

"  Defined.     Not  commercial 503  to  504  and  528. 

' '  Nor  yet  fictitious 504  and  505. 

"  Objected  to 513  to  518. 

Scieiitia  Simplex 49  and  155. 

Scientia  Media 156,  etc.  219,  288  and  289. 

Scripture  Infallible 144. 

Seal  of  Holy  Ghost 692. 

Second  Causes  what,  and  How  co-working  with  First  Cause  ? 279,  etc. 

Self-contradictions  not  authorized  by  Revelation 141. 

Self-defence  Lawful 402  and  405. 

Self-depravation  described 312  to  3 !3. 

Self-examination  defended 708  and  709. 

Selfish  System  of  Ethics 97,  etc. 

Self-love  and  Sin  not  always  same 104,  etc. 

Seminal  Graces 666  to  667. 

Sensations  awaken  first :  but  do  not  Deprave  the  soul 333. 

Sensualistic  Philosophy  fatal ,80. 

Simplicity  of  God's  substance 43,  44  and  151. 

Sin,  what  ? 306,  etc. 

Sin  universal  among  men 324  and  325. 

Sin  always  deserving  of  Death 427  to  429. 

Sinai  Covenant,  not  one  of  Works 452  to  457. 

Skepticism  Absolute 81  to  83. 

Sleep  of  Soul  after  Death,  disproved 825  to  829. 

Smith,  Dr.  Adam,  Sentimental  System no. 

Smith,  Dr.  Pye.      Theory  of  pre-Adamite  Earth 253. 

Social  Contract  Theory  rejected 862  and  866, 

Socinian  Conditions  of  Belief  rejected 139  to  140. 

"        Theor.' of  Redempdon,  Refuted 505,  and  507. 

'•         Doctrine  of  Pardon  corrupring 497  and  498. 

Son  of  God 189  to  190. 

Souls.     Origin  of  by  Creation  or  Traduction    317  to  321. 

Souls  passive  in  Regeneration 586  and  587. 

Sources  of  moral  Judgments 96  to  116. 

Sources  of  our  Thinking 87,  etc. 

Sovereignty   of  Decree 216  to  220.  • 

Special  Providence 277  to  283. 

Spinoza's  Pantheism , 23. 

Spirit,  Holy 193,  etc. 

Spirit  known  in  order  to  knowing  Matter 67. 

Spiritual  Creatures  above  Man 265,  etc. 

Spirituality  of  Man.     Ethical  argument 68  to  74. 

Spirituality  of  God 42,  43  and  151. 

Standard  of  Sanctificadon,  what 686. 

State  and  Church,  How  related 873  to  887. 

Sublapsarian  scheme  of  Decree 232,  etc. 

Subsistence   Defined 1 74  and  175. 

Substance  "       174. 

Substitution  foreshadowed  by  Providence 500. 

"  Why  unusual  in  Civil  Government 501  and  502. 

"  and  Satisfaction  of  Christ 510  and  511. 


"902 


INDEX. 


s. 

Sufficient  Grace 581  to  585. 

Suggestions  too  frequently  recurring 275. 

Sunday,  Why  so  called 395  and  396. 

Supererogation,  Works  of 684  and  6S6. 

Supper  the  Lord's 800  and  817. 

Supralapsarian  Scheme 232,  etc. 

Sustentation  of  Being,  What  ? 278  to  282. 

T. 

Table  first,  of  Law.     Table  second 358  to  429. 

Taste  illustrates  moral  sentiments 117. 

Teleological  argument 13  to  16. 

"  "  Not  weakened  by  Evolution 33  to  38. 

Temporary  Faith 600  to  601 . 

Temptations  of  Evil  Angels  through  Body 274  and  275. 

"  Duties  arising  out  of 275. 

Ten  Commandments 35S,  etc. 

Testament  :  Was  the  Covenant  snch  ? 430. 

Tests  of  Primitive  Judgments 83. 

Theodicy  only  seen  in  Cross 537  to  538. 

Theology  Defined,   Divisions 5  and  6. 

"Theophanies  of  the  Son 186  to  1S8. 

Thornwell,  Dr.     View  of  Man's  Orig.  Righteousness 298. 

Time  of  Christ's  second  advent  correctly  understood  by  Apostles 844. 

'Torments  of  Wicked  ;  Nature  and  Duration 852  to  862. 

Total  Depravity 323  to  328. 

Traditions  of  Decalogue 378  to  379. 

Traditions  of  Church  as  to  Lord's  Day 394  lo  395. 

Traducianism 317  to  321. 

Transubstantiation 804  to  808. 

Trinity 1 74,  etc. 

"      Defined 174  to  175  and  177. 

"      Mysterious,  not  Impossible 179,  etc. 

"      Rationale  of,  attempted  in  vain 180. 

"      Direct  Scripture  proof  of 181. 

Truth  of  God 171. 

"     Duty  of  Speaking  and  Thinking 419,  etc. 

Turrettin's  Doctrine  of  Concursus 287  to  291. 

"  "  Immediate  Imputation 341  to  349. 

Tyndall's  Physical  Prayer-Test 720. 

U. 

Unbelief,  how  ground  of  Preterition,  in   Jno.  x  :  26 242. 

Unconditional  Decree • 218  to  220. 

Union  to  Christ,  Images  of 612  to  617. 

"  "       Why  called  mystical 613  to  614. 

"  "       Instrument  and  Essential  Bond  of 614  to  615. 

"  •'       Determines  our  view  of  Supper 616  to  617. 

Unity  of  the  Decree 215  to  217. 

"      God - 40  to  151. 

"      of  Human  Race 293. 

Universal  Truths  what  ? 85. 

Universality  of  Decree 215  to  217. 

Universal  offer  of  Gospel 523  and  524. 

Universal  Design  of  Christ's  Death  as  Asserted  by  Some 524  to  525. 

Universalism  Discussed 854  to  862. 

Universalism   Hypothetic 235  to  236. 

Unrenewed  do  no  Good  Works 678  to  679. 

Usury,  when  lawful 416  to  417. 

Utilitarian  Ethics 99  to  106. 

V. 

Veracity,  virtue  of 423. 

Virtues  of  natural  men  spurious  ? 323  to  324. 

Vitality,  what  ? 57. 

Volition  wrong,  how  arising  in  a  right  will  ? 311  and  312. 


INDEX. 


903 


W. 

AVar,  Defensive  lawful 403  and  404. 

Warfare  of  Messiah  and  Satan  makes  all  Earthly  History 271  and  272. 

Warrant  of  prayer,  how  extensive 721,  ect. 

Watts'  Dr.  I.     Theory  of  the  Will 132. 

Week  of  Creation,  how  interpreted 252  to  255. 

Wesleyan  Theory  of  the  Fall 316  and  581. 

"  "  Imputation 338. 

"  "  Justification 637  to  639. 

"  "  Witness  of  Holy  Ghost 711. 

Westminister  view  of  Lord's  Supper 811. 

"  "  Sabbath   obligation 37410375. 

Will,  Doctrine  of 120  to  132. 

"       Determined  by  Motives 122  to  126. 

"       of  God,  distinguished  into  Secret  and  Revealed 161. 

"  "  *'  "     antecedent  and  consequent 162. 

"  "      not  first  source  of  Righteousness 163. 

W^ill  essential  seat  of  Depravity 571. 

' '    naturally  hostile  to  God 595  and  596. 

Wisdom  of  God 47  to  48. 

Witchcraft 273. 

Witness  of  the  Spirit 710  to  712. 

Words  of  Institution  in  Lord's  Supper 805  to  806. 

Works  of  God  ascribed  to  Christ 191  to  192. 

Works  excluded  from  Justification 622  to  629. 

"      Essential  as  signs  A  posteriori  oi  the  justified  State 630  and  631. 

"      Why  essential  as  fruits  of  Justification  ? 647. 

Worship  of  the  "  Host  " ■. 807. 

"  God  given  to  Christ 193. 

"  Saints,  Romish 359  to  360. 

Z. 
Zwinglius'  views  of  the  Supper 809. 


r.i', 


